RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/48
27 October 1999
(99-4677)
General Council
6 October 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 6 October 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
Subjects discussed: Page :
1. International Trade Centre UNCT AD/WTO.....................................................................2
(a) Report of the Join t Advisory Group .......................................................................................2
2. Accession of Georgia......................................................................................................... ....2
(a) Report of the Working Party ................................................................................................ ..2
3. Accession of Bhutan.......................................................................................................... ....4
(a) Communication fr om Bhutan ................................................................................................4
4. Offices of Deputy Directors-General...................................................................................7
(a) Statement by  the Chairman................................................................................................... ..7
5. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce ...................................................................16
6. Five-year review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3
of the GATT 1994 ............................................................................................................... 21
7. Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding............................................................25
(a) Statement by the Chairman of  the Dispute Settlement Body................................................25
8. Attendance of observers at th e 1999 Ministerial Conference .........................................32
(a) Governm ents ................................................................................................................ ........32
(b) International Intergover nmental Orga nizations ....................................................................32
9. Promotion of the institut ional image of the WTO ...........................................................32
10. Frequency and scheduling of WTO meetings...................................................................33
11. Observer status for internationa l intergovernmental  organizations..............................33
12. Informal meeting of the Genera l Council on co herence issues.......................................33
13. Chairmanship of the Dispute Settlement Body ................................................................33
14. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of
Bosnia and He rzegovina.....................................................................................................34
15. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of the
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia ........................................................................34
At the outset of the meeting, the Chairman welcomed the Director-General, Mr. Mike Moore,
who was attending his first meeting of the General Council after his appointment.  He assured the
Director-General of his full cooperation as Chairman of the General Council and wished him success
in meeting the challenges ahead.
The Director-General thanked the Chairman for his commitment and leadership through
difficult days.  Over the next few weeks, all would have to call on their reserves of good will,WT/GC/M/48
Page 2
solidarity and constructive compromise in the course of preparations for the Third Ministerial
Conference.  He looked forward to working with all delegations as their facilitator and advocate.
All representatives who spoke at the meeting welcomed the Director-General and assured him
of their delegations' full support.
The representative of Bolivia, on behalf of GRULAC , assured the Director-General of the
GRULAC Members' full cooperation in the attainment  of their shared objectives.  These countries
considered that the WTO Agreement and respect for its principles and rules offered an opportunity to
strengthen the world economy, to promote trade and investment, and through these, to promote
employment and earnings.  They were convinced of the crucial need to make constructive efforts in
order to foster development and to have a greater share in the growth of world trade for the benefit oftheir economies.  Considerable work remained to be  done to achieve a multilateral trading system that
was predictable and stable, as well as a more balanced world trade heritage with the participation of
all, as stated by the Marrakesh Agreement.  The GRULAC countries were confident that the Director-
General and the Secretariat would work with determination in this direction.
1. International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO
(a) Report of the Joint Advisory Group (ITC/JAG(XXXII)/173)
The Chairman said that the Joint Advisory Group of the International Trade Centre
UNCTAD/WTO had held its Thirty-second Session from 19 to 23 April 1999 and its report had been
distributed in document ITC/JAG(XXXII)/173.  At its meeting in July 1999 the Committee on Trade
and Development had examined the report and had forwarded it to the General Council for adoption.
On behalf of the General Council, he expressed appreciation for the useful and valuable work of the
ITC.
The General Council took note of the statement and adopted  the report in
ITC/JAG(XXXII)/173.
2. Accession of Georgia
(a) Report of the Working Party (WT/ACC/GEO/31 and Add.1 and 2)
The Chairman recalled that in July 1996 the General Council established a Working Party to
examine the request by Georgia for accession to th e WTO Agreement.  The report of the Working
Party was now before the General Council in  documents WT/ACC/GEO/31 and Add.1 and 2.
Mrs. Anderson (Ireland), Chairperson of the Working Party, introducing the report, recalled
that following an intensive phase of preparatory work under the previous Chairperson of the Working
Party, it had been able to conclude its procedures on 28 July 1999 on the basis of an accession
package adopted by the Working Party on an ad referendum basis and subject to technical
clarification, which had been subsequently successfully completed.  The rapid pace of this accession
process testified to the determination shown by the Georgian authorities to carry through an
impressive reform process sustained by a high degree of trade liberalisation and full conformity withWTO rules and disciplines.  The fact that Georgia had been able to conclude accession negotiations so
rapidly and efficiently proved that when supported by constructive dialogue, intensive preparatory
work and good will, the WTO accession procedures had worked well.  The results of the accession
negotiations were contained in the following documents:  the report of the Working Party
(WT/ACC/GEO/31), the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments in GoodsWT/GC/M/48
Page 3
(WT/ACC/GEO/31/Add.1) and the Schedule of Specific Commitments in Services
(WT/ACC/GEO/31/Add.2).  The Appendix to the report reproduced the draft Decision for the General
Council and the draft Protocol for the Accession of Georgia.  In accordance with WTO practice, the
Protocol of Accession incorporated specific co mmitments undertaken by Georgia in relation to
matters negotiated in the Working Party.  Members of the Working Party had noted Georgia's effortsto adopt, by the date of accession, WTO-consistent legislation.  Thus, Georgia would become an
effective participant in the WTO immediately upon entr y into force of the Protocol of Accession.  The
results of the accession negotiations would not only contribute to ensuring Georgia's sustained
economic development, but also to strengthening the multilateral trading system as a whole.
The representative of Georgia, speaking as an observer
, said that his country's accession to the
WTO was an important event in the strengthening of its independence.  Since independence, Georgia
had vigorously worked to harmonize its national legislation with international political and
socio-economic norms.  It was determined to continue this ambitious course of economic reforms,
increased efficiency and modernization of its economy.  The expansion of the multilateral trade
system would help to stop economic nationalis m and protectionism, would give countries a fair
foothold in the global trading market, and would thus contribute to stable and continued economicgrowth world-wide.  The WTO system played an in dispensable role in assuring growth and stability
in an increasingly interdependent world.  Moreover, experience had shown that there was no rational
alternative to the multilateral trading system, in which both large and small economies enjoyed equal
rights based on the rule of law.  That system had also provided guidelines and incentives for
restructuring Georgia's national economy.  As Georgia was a transit country, its accession to the WTOwas of special importance to its great economic potential.  He assured Members of Georgia's
commitment to implement all the obligations undertak en within the framework of its accession to the
WTO, and to follow the ideals and principles of the WTO.  By assuming their rightful place in the
global trading system, Georgia and other countries in transition would no doubt see prosperity and
stability increase along with their new and expanded activity in the world economic arena.
The Chairman, on behalf of the General Council, welcomed the accession of Georgia.
All representatives who spoke said that their delegations welcomed the accession of Georgia,
supported the adoption of the Working Party report and the draft Decision on the accession of
Georgia, and looked forward to working with Georgia as a WTO Member.
The representative of Hungary, on behalf of  the CEFTA Members and Latvia,  said that these
countries had followed with great sympathy Georgia's efforts to overcome the heavy economic
heritage of the past and to create a full-fledged market economy.  The accession of Georgia to the
WTO was a milestone in a delicate transition process.  On the one hand, Georgia's accession was
recognition by WTO Members of the considerable results Georgia had achieved in its economictransition.  On the other, Georgia's membership in the WTO would encourage its government and
population to continue the necessary economic and social reforms.  The CEFTA Members and Latvia
hoped that Georgia's participation in WTO work, as well as in the forthcoming round of negotiations,
would help its government and population to realize Georgia's national aspirations and bring the
stability and prosperity it deserved.
The representative of Japan congratulated Georgia on the tremendous efforts it had made
throughout the accession process to bring its trade regime into conformity with the WTO Agreements.
These efforts had helped Georgia to complete its accession negotiations in only three years.  The
accession processes for countries such as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia should be expedited asmuch as possible, so that the WTO would become more universal.WT/GC/M/48
Page 4
The representative of the United States said that her delegation supported the terms contained
in Georgia's accession documents and looked forward to Georgia's completion of the necessary
internal ratification procedures.
The representative of Turkey said that the success of its accession negotiations showed
Georgia's determination to liberalize its economy.  This would not only contribute to the welfare and
prosperity of Georgia's population but also to closer economic cooperation in the Black Sea region.
Turkey as a neighbouring country had always enjoyed preferential commercial relations with Georgia
and therefore appreciated Georgia's efforts in the privatization process, the restructuring of its
economy, and above all in the adoption of a WTO-consistent legal framework.  These reforms were
important for Georgia's integration into the multilateral trading system.  Turkey hoped that other
acceding countries would become WTO Members promptly.
The representative of the European Communities welcomed the successful conclusion of
Georgia's accession process.  This reflected the efforts Georgia had made to transform its economy
and to establish a liberal trade regime.  His delegation particularly welcomed Georgia's efforts to
adopt, by the date of accession, the range of reforms required to bring its legislative and institutionalsystem into conformity with the WTO Agreements .  Georgia's commitment to a liberal, open trade
regime through the adoption of commercially sound market-access commitments was a considerable
achievement, and the Community fervently supported Georgia's integration into the rule-based WTO
system.
The representative of Bolivia, on  behalf of GRULAC
, said that Georgia's accession was a
further contribution to the universality of the WTO th at would in turn contribute to the strengthening
of  the multilateral trading system and the welfare of all WTO Members.
The representative of the Philippines, on behalf of the ASEAN Members  said that these
countries welcomed the rapid completion of the negotiations on the accession of Georgia to the WTO
and hoped that its accession to the WTO would facilitate its open and equitable integration into the
world trading community.  It was important for countrie s in transition to be integrated quickly into the
multilateral trading system.
The representative of Pakistan said that Georgia's accession was a further contribution to the
universality of the WTO.  Its accession process had lasted from 1996 to 1999, which could be
considered a fast-track process only in comparison to the usual duration of such processes in the
WTO.  He expressed his delegation's concern with re gard to the continuing delays in the completion
of the negotiations for the accession of China, Saudi Arabia and other countries.
The General Council approved the text of the Protocol of Accessi on (WT/ACC/GEO/32) and
the text of the draft Decision on the Accession of Georgia and, in accordance with the Decision-
Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995
(WT/L/93), adopted the Decision on the Accessi on of Georgia (WT/ACC/GE O/33).  The General
Council then adopted the report of the Workin g Party (WT/ACC/GEO/31 and Add.1 and 2), and took
note of the statements and of the expressions of support.
3. Accession of Bhutan
(a) Communication from Bhutan  (WT/ACC/BTN/1/Rev.1)
The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Bhutan in document
WT/ACC/BTN/1/Rev.1 requesting accession to the WTO Agreement.WT/GC/M/48
Page 5
The representative of Bhutan, speaking as an observer , said that since Bhutan had become an
observer in April 1998, it had closely followed work in the WTO and the multilateral trading system.
Bhutan's decision in August 1999 to apply for membership to the WTO had been taken after careful
consideration and with full awareness of the rights and obligations of membership, and was in line
with Bhutan's desire to be part of the evolving multilateral trading system based on the rule of law.Since the end of the last decade, Bhutan's economy, which was largely agriculturally based, had
experienced a growth rate of roughly 6 to 7 per cen t per annum owing to exploitation of the country's
resources, in particular its vast hydropower potential.   This had in turn fuelled the growth of natural
resource-based industries that made use of the cheap and abundant power Bhutan was able to produce.
However, Bhutan's economic structure was still weak , with the industrial and export sectors based on
a narrow range of products.  In view of th e need for export development, marketing and
diversification, Bhutan had adopted a more open and liberal trade policy in order to stimulate exportgrowth.  Strategies were being pursued to expand the export base and to promote non-traditional
export sectors.  The Government had removed taxes on exports, reduced tariff rates on all imports to
levels now among the lowest in the region, and had introduced a set of rules and procedures that were
transparent and simple.  Bilateral trade agreements with India and Bangladesh had greatly improved
market access for Bhutan's exports.  Bhutan had participated in the South Asian Association forRegional Cooperation (SAARC), and supported the ne gotiations for the SAARC Preferential Trading
Agreement (SAPTA).  It would continue to push for greater liberalization of tariffs within the region
and to work towards the creation of a South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA).  Bhutan's integration
into the global economy would not only be beneficial  for its trade and development, but would allow
it to gain access to technology and investment and to create jobs and improve the living standards ofits people.  As a landlocked, least-developed country with limited capacity, Bhutan hoped and
expected that flexibility would be shown in its ac cession negotiations, and that in line with the 1998
Ministerial Declaration, its accession process would proceed as rapidly as possible.  His delegation
welcomed the fast-track procedure proposed by the European Communities and urged all Members to
support this proposal at the Third Ministerial Conference.  Technical assistance would be imperativeto strengthen Bhutan's negotiating capacity and to frame domestic legislative and economic policies
compatible with the WTO Agreements, and Bhutan looked forward to receiving such assistance.  As a
WTO Member, Bhutan hoped to benefit from international trade and to contribute to the continuing
success of the WTO.  It was confident that the WTO would be sensitive to its policy of seeking a
balance between socio-cultural values and environmental protection on the one hand, and economic
advancement on the other.  His delegation looked forward to the support, guidance and assistance of
WTO Members and the Secretariat to pursue international trade policies consistent with Bhutan'sneeds and aspirations.
All representatives who spoke welcomed Bhutan's decision to seek accession to the WTO and
supported the establishment of a Working Party to examine its request.
The representative of India said that Bhutan's early accession on terms and conditions that
would take into account its developmental needs was of particular interest to India, particularly
because Bhutan was a friendly neighbour with which India had historically had close political,
economic and trade ties, exemplified in Bhutan's Agreement on Trade and Commerce with India.
With Bhutan's decision to apply for accession to the WTO, all SAARC members were either already
WTO Members or were in the process of acceding.  In order to be credible, the WTO had to attainuniversal membership as soon as possible.  His delegation therefore supported the expeditious
examination of Bhutan's request and its early accession to the WTO.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation looked forward to contributing to the
accession procedures and to cooperating with Bhutan for its early accession to the WTO.WT/GC/M/48
Page 6
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that these countries
looked forward to developing fruitful workin g relationships with Bhutan within the WTO.
The representative of Sri Lanka, on behalf of the SAARC Members , said that Bhutan was an
active member of the South Asian Association fo r Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and that five out
of seven SAARC members were already WTO Member s:  Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, Maldives
and Pakistan.  Bhutan was a small and landlocked country with tremendous export potential.
Sri Lanka had enjoyed long historical, political, economic and cultural ties with it, and was keen to
see Bhutan's application for accession considered favorably.
The representative of Bangladesh said that Bhutan was a neighbour, a growing trading partner
and an important member of SAARC, which was wo rking towards broadening trade, cultural and
other ties so that people in this region could achieve better living standards.  As Bhutan was a least-
developed country, Bangladesh stressed the need for a fast-track accession process and joined Japan's
statement on the need to speed up pending applications for accession to the WTO.  This would
contribute to the universality of the WTO, and his delegation reiterated its support for pending
applications for accession as well as for observership.
The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation fully supported
Bhutan's earliest possible accession to the WTO, and urged Members to work to expedite as much as
possible the accession of the least-developed countries.
The representative of Bolivia, on behalf of GRULAC,  said that Bhutan's application for
accession would no doubt enrich the WTO.  Bolivia was particularly pleased to welcome Bhutan as it
shared its geographical characteristics and altitude.
The representative of Pakistan said that Bhutan's membership would be another symbol of its
independence and sovereignty.  As Bhutan was a SAARC member, Pakistan especially welcomed this
accession, joined sentiments expressed by Sri Lanka, and looked forward to closer economic and
trade relations with Bhutan.  Bhutan's accession, together with the trade arrangements under SAARC,
would contribute to reaching these objectives.  As Bhutan was a least-developed country, Pakistan
would call for the application of the fast-track procedure.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to establish a working party with
the following terms of reference and composition:
Terms of reference:
"To examine the application of the Government of Bhutan to accede to the WTO Agreement
under Article XII, and to submit to the General Council recommendations which may include a draftProtocol of Accession."
Membership:
Membership would be open to all Members indicating their wish to serve on the Working
Party.
Chairman:
The General Council would authorize its Chairman to designate the Chairman of the Working
Party in consultation with representatives of Members and with the representative of Bhutan.WT/GC/M/48
Page 7
The Chairman invited the representative of Bhutan to consult with the Secretariat as to further
procedures, in particular regarding the basic documentation to be considered by the Working Party.
He also invited Bhutan, on behalf of the General Council, to attend meetings of the General Council
and, as appropriate, meetings of other WTO bodies as an observer during the period when the
Working Party was carrying out its work.
4. Offices of Deputy Directors-General
(a) Statement by the Chairman
The Chairman made a statement1 in which he described the consultations on the question of
the number of Deputy Directors-General ("DDGs") to be appointed and the evolution of this issue.
He then proposed the following:
(a) that the General Council take note of all views expressed by delegations concerning
the senior management structure of the Secretariat and the number of posts of Deputy
Directors-General;
(b) that the General Council agree to revert to this matter at the earliest possible
opportunity;  and
(c) that in light of the above, the General Council take note that the present senior
management structure of the Secretariat, consisting of one Director-General and four
Deputy Directors-General, is maintained, pending the conclusions to be reached inthe context of the review of the WTO secretariat and senior management structure.
He also proposed that the General Council agree that the review of the WTO Secretariat and
senior management structure be carried out in conjunction with the review of the current Rules and
Procedures for appointment of Directors-General,  to be concluded by the end of September 2000, as
provided for in the Decision of 22 July 1999 on the appointment of the next Director-General
(WT/L/308).  It was understood that the review of the WTO Secretariat and senior management
structure shall be carried out in the light of the earlier discussions held in the General Council on this
matter in 1997 and 1998, based on the decision adopted by the General Council on 24 April 1997
(WT/L/207).
The representative of Mexico, on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries , said
there were differing views within this Group regarding the ideal number of DDGs.  At the most recent
meeting of this Group, those who preferred a number other than four DDGs had indicated their
willingness to be flexible in orde r to resolve this mater as soon as possible.  However, all participants
had expressed a keen interest in seeing that should there be five posts at the senior management level,
three would be for developing countries, so that Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asiaeach had one post of DDG.  This was not contrary to the concept of status quo, since in the previous
administration, three DDGs had been from developing countries.
The representative of Morocco said that his de legation had not been informed that this matter
was ready for a decision and thus did not have instructions on the Chairman's proposal.  The informal
meeting on which the Chairman had based his proposal had not had a clear outcome.  Since Morocco
was not in a position to take a decision on the proposal at the present meeting, he suggested that the
General Council revert to this matter within 48 hours so that he could seek definitive instructions.  His
delegation would like to assist the Director-General and accommodate his wishes, but needed to know
                                                     
1 The statement was subsequently circulated in WT/GC/27.WT/GC/M/48
Page 8
the following:  the term of office of the DDGs to be appointed, and what the responsibilities of each
of the four DDGs would be.
The Director-General said that he was at the service of Members and would do what the
General Council requested.  No one was happy with the process of selecting the Director-General or
of selecting DDGs.  He was content to work under the same conditions as the previous Director-
General.  If the number of four DDGs was agreed, he would assign them the same responsibilities as
had the previous Director-General.  Following the Third Ministerial Conference, he would want to
shape the Secretariat in line with the mandate from Ministers as to the WTO's work programme.  His
first focus was on that Conference, to ensure that each country had the ability to promote its legitimate
interests, and for that he would need the support of deputies.  He noted that he was used to working as
a team and would seek to have talented people as part of his team.
The representative of Japan thanked the Chairman for having conducted intensive
consultations on this matter and for informing the Members of the Director-General's preference.
Japan still felt that two was the appropriate number of DDGs from a functional point of view.
However, his delegation would join a consensus on the Chairman's proposal on the understanding that(1) this decision was a provisional one, and that a final decision would be taken in the context of the
review of the WTO Secretariat and the Senior Management Structure;  and (2) the basis of the review
process would be the General Council's Decision of April 1997 (WT/L/207).
The representative of Tunisia said that his delegation could accept the Chairman's proposal
but recalled Tunisia's position that there should be a reduction in the number of DDGs, and its
proposal for a formula known as "two plus one".
The Chairman clarified that he had first conducted bilateral consultations followed by
plurilateral consultations followed by an informal meeting of the General Council at which he had
indicated that a consensus was sought on this matter with the idea of resolving it as soon as possible,
that is, at the next formal meeting of the General Council.  This was why he had put his proposal
forward at the present meeting for a decision.
The representative of Uganda said that his delegation was not convinced that a reduction in
the number of DDGs would necessarily increase effectiveness or efficiency, and preferred
maintaining the status quo of four DDGs.  Any reduction in that number would cause furthermarginalization of developing countries.  Uganda could go along with the Chairman's proposal and
shared India's and Pakistan's views on the need for representation of the developing countries at the
senior management level.  It was hoped that the Di rector-General, in making his appointments, would
address this question.  The review foreseen should not be prejudged in any way, and Uganda
disagreed with Japan that the 1997 Decision would be the starting point for such a review.  ThatDecision would merely be an element to consider, along with the need for equitable geographical
balance.  Those appointed should be given terms of office long enough to allow them to be useful.
The representative of India said that one could justify almost any number of DDG posts.
Those suggesting a particular number of posts – while not explicitly insisting on a particular
representation – nevertheless seemed to have an end result in mind.  India could accept the suggestion
for four posts.  However, it was essential that in the WTO senior management as a whole, the balance
not be tilted against – and ideally be tilted in favour of – developing countries.  This was neither a
new thought nor an unacceptable one to WTO Members.  India agreed with Mexico that the review to
be carried out should be time-bound.  That review should not be limited to the number of DDGs butshould be a complete review of the structure of the Secretariat, with a view to ensuring greater
transparency and equity in recruitment policies.  After the immediate decision was taken on the
number of DDGs, his delegation hoped that the Direct or-General would, as required, hold intensiveWT/GC/M/48
Page 9
consultations on the appointments he was considering.  He associated his delegation with the
statement by Mexico on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries.
The representative of Morocco reiterated that he would need to seek instructions from his
authorities and thus could not agree to anything at the present meeting.  Further, this was the first time
he was aware that Japan and Tunisia no longer had any reservations and could accept the proposal to
maintain the status quo.  However, he was optimistic as to the instructions he would receive and urged
that the meeting be adjourned on this point.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation's position had consistently
been that this question should be decided on the basis of operational needs, and that two DDGs was a
reasonable number.  Experience had shown that four DDGs was excessive.  In addition, they wereexpensive – with two such posts, rather than fo ur, the savings would be Sw F 800,000 per year.  Over
a period of six years, the savings would be nearly Sw F 5 million.  This money could be better spent
elsewhere, notably on technical assistance.  Furthe rmore, maintaining the status quo of four would do
nothing for the WTO's image and would be seen as another political compromise at the expense of
common sense.  However, in order to avoid a protracted debate Hong Kong, China would not objectto the Chairman's proposal with certain reservations.  It was reassured by the Director-General's
statement that the appointment of DDGs would be on  the basis of their talents for the job, but it was
not convinced of the usefulness of an early review of the number of DDGs.  This would seem
redundant, given that Members were effectively deci ding at present to have  four DDGs for six years.
It would do the WTO's  image no good to have a review that suggested a reduction that could not beput into practice in the foreseeable future.  In any case, this review was different from the review of
procedures for appointing the Director-General, and the latter issue had to be taken up as soon as
possible.
The representative of Venezuela reiterated his delegations' support for the Chairman's
proposal and said it was very useful to hear the views of the Director-General on this issue.  The
proposal was the most pragmatic approach and would enable the Director-general to take up the
challenges ahead in full strength and with a highly qualified team to help him.  Different views and
recommendations had been heard in the course of the consultations on this matter.  However, the
majority of Members had supported the proposal, and it was time to move on and to allow the
Director-General to name his team as soon as possible.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation's position on this issue was not
embedded in principle, and it was prepared to go along with the pragmatic approach outlined by the
Chairman to maintain the status quo until Members were convinced that there should be a change.
However, it was also a matter of pragmatism for Members to be clear about their self-interests.
Pakistan had clearly stated in the informal meeting of the General Council that if there were to be fourDDG posts, three of them should be with the developing countries – one each for Asia, Africa and
Latin America – and fully associated with Mexico's statement on behalf of the Informal Group of
Developing Countries.  Such a situation would be in conformity with the recent status quo in which
the developing countries had three of the five senior management posts.  If this were the
understanding of the General Council and of the Director-General, Pakistan could accept the proposal.
The representative of the European Communities said that on this issue his delegation was
driven by the need to avoid a long and divisive debate and to have rapid appointments, so that the
Director-General could have support in the process ahead.  These were the priority issues, and any
other issue could be taken up in the review.  Whil e the Informal Group of Developing Countries had
expressed a keen interest to have a developing country in three of the senior management posts, the
member States of the Community had a keen interest that the Director-General's selection of deputies
be fairly balanced.  The Director-General's hands should not be tied, and Members should state inWT/GC/M/48
Page 10
only the broadest of terms what his objectives should be.  He asked for clarification as to the terms of
the deputies to be appointed.
The Chairman said that the current rule was for three-year contracts for the DDGs.  However,
the present situation was unique, in that there was a Director-General with a term of three years to be
followed by another with the same term.  Since the present Director-General's three-year term had
already begun, he would no doubt consult with Members on the terms of his deputies, which would
necessarily be shorter than three years in order no t to overlap with the term of the next Director-
General.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation could go along with the
Chairman's proposal and could accept Mexico's suggestion for a time-frame for the review of the
WTO's senior management structure.  The Chairman's proposal was practical and realistic in light of
the preparations for the Ministerial Conference and the ongoing work of the WTO.  Her delegation
was hopeful that in the course of the review to be conducted, the concerns that had been expressed by
Members could be addressed.  However, there were issues and work that had to be tackled as soon as
possible, and continuing to insist on conditions to the Chairman's proposal would not be productive.Considerable time had been spent in selecting two excellent leaders for the next six years, and the
current Director-General, as one of those individuals, should be trusted to take fully into consideration
the concerns of all Members and to consult with them in making his selection of deputies.  Members
should not apply conditions to and prejudge that selection, at a time when all needed to focus on
preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference and on its results.  It was important to get down towork immediately, and the United States asked any delegation that might have difficulties with the
proposal to seek instructions so that a decision could be taken as soon as possible.
The representative of Panama said that as Members had not been able to take a decision on
this matter, the Director-General's views on it bore particular weight.  In principle and given the
circumstances, the Chairman's proposal was acceptable, under the conditions mentioned by some
delegations, such as Japan.  It was not clear to Panama that the terms of the DDGs had already been
determined.  This was of concern, as there were already a large number of candidates for these posts,
and some might no longer be interested in the post should the term be too short.  Members should
work intensively within the next few weeks to see whether a definitive decision could be reached on
this matter.
The representative of Australia supported the statement by the United States.  The General
Council could not tie the hands of the Director-General in his selection of deputies.  This was an
exercise in expediency, and he recalled his delegation's position that on the grounds of efficiency, the
number of DDG posts should be substantially reduced.  However, Australia was prepared to go along
with the Chairman's recommendation, bearing in mind the views and preferences of the Director-General.  His delegation joined Japan in the view that the 1997 Decision, which said there should be a
substantial reduction in these posts, should be the starting-point for the review of the senior
management structure.  This should be reflected in  the terms of reference for that review and in the
proposed decision.  While India's suggestion regarding a balance in favour of developing countries
was reasonable, the overriding consideration should be suitability for the post and merit.  As HongKong, China had stated, the savings from having two instead of four DDGs would be considerable,
and using those funds for technical cooperation would contribute more to the interests of developing
countries than having representation at the senior management level.  An important element in its
accepting the Chairman's proposal was that Australia maintain some credibility.  Thus, like Japan,
Australia would insist that the review to be conducted be based on the 1997 Decision to substantiallyreduce the number of DDG posts.  That Decision c ould not be ignored.  The fact that four DDGs
would be appointed by the current Director-General should not lead to the presumption that the next
Director-General would require, or that the General Council would provide for, four deputies.WT/GC/M/48
Page 11
The representative of Jamaica associated his delegation with the statement by Mexico on
behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries.  His delegation could accept the Chairman's
proposal, and supported a review to be conducted within the time-frame of September 2000.  The
terms of the DDGs to be appointed, regardless of the recommendations arising from that review,
should be settled as from the present, as this was essential for security, predictability and continuity inthe operation of  the organization.  There should be no situation in which, within a short period, there
was a substantial change in the senior management of the organization.  He recalled that Jamaica's
preference was for fewer DDG posts.
The representative of Kenya said that his delegation agreed on the need to move speedily and
decisively on this question and to avoid a long and divisive debate.  The Director-General should be
given all the support necessary for him to fulfill his mandate, given the heavy work load ahead.Under the circumstances, the best way ahead was to agree on the status quo of four DDGs, and at the
earliest time to revert back to a full review of the senior management structure of the WTO.  Such a
decision would be on the understanding regarding the need for proper geographical representation and
noting the fact that Africa had never been represented in the post of DDG.  He asked for details on the
implementation of the proposed decision, such as the time-frame for the review and whether theappointments would be made before or after the Third Ministerial Conference.  Kenya endorsed the
statement by Mexico on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries, and stressed the
urgency of this matter.
The representative of Kenya, on behalf of the African Group
, said that these countries
supported the proposal to maintain the present structure as long as three DDGs were from developing
countries and one was from Africa.
The representative of Malaysia said his delegation agreed that this matter should be resolved
as soon as possible given the urgent tasks ahead.  Malaysia was one of those delegations with
reservations about maintaining the status quo, remained  of the view that for reasons of efficiency and
financial implications the number of DDG posts should be fewer th an four, and agreed with Hong
Kong, China's statement in this regard.  However, given the current circumstances it would not block
a consensus on the Chairman's proposal, on the basis of the understanding regarding the review to be
undertaken.  In this regard, Malaysia associated itself with the statement by Japan.  During the
consultations on this matter his delegation had suggested that any decision should be applicable to
both Mr. Moore and Mr. Supachai, and had stressed that the terms of the DDGs to be appointedshould be coterminous with the respective Director-General.  Malaysia understood that the decision
would be taken with this understanding.
The representative of Canada said that it had always been Canada's position that a smaller
number of DDG posts would better serve the efficien cy of the organization.  However, Canada was
ready to accept the Chairman's proposal to maintain the status quo.  This was in the practical best
interests of the organization and was realistic as well, given the upcoming Ministerial Conference and
the review to be conducted after that meeting.  As  the Community and the US had said, the Director-
General's hands should not be unduly tied in his selection of DDGs.  Canada agreed with those who
had warned against a protracted and divisive debate on this matter.  However, should that scenariodevelop, Canada would recommend postponing any action on this matter until after the Ministerial
Conference, as there was a need to avoid such divisiveness, and the last signal that Members should
be sending the public was that this exercise was a repeat of the protracted and divisive one that
yielded two excellent and qualified Directors-General.  This would lessen the credibility of the
organization at a time when all should be protecting and promoting it.  Regarding the term of office ofthe DDGs, it was often in the best interests of the organization to have continuity, without
overpoliticizing the post of DDG.  It might develop that there was a lapse between the end of
Mr. Moore's term and the beginning of Mr. Supachai's, in which it would be in the interest of the new
Director-General to have deputies in place.  Further, should there be another protracted debateWT/GC/M/48
Page 12
concerning Mr. Supachai's successor it would be useful to have deputies in place.  Thus, one should
look to the exceptions, rather than simply accept the rule as a given.
The representative of Poland said there was a need for flexibility to accommodate both the
functional and political aspects of the appointment of DDGs.  His delegation was keen to explore the
impact of nominating DDGs now and coming back to this issue as soon as possible in the context of
the review of the WTO senior management structure.  Poland could accept the Chairman's proposal,
and understood that the decision was on the number of DDG posts and not on geographical
distribution.  While there were drawbacks to this proposal, including budgetary problems and
uncertainty regarding the terms of the DDGs, there was a need to settle this issue quickly.  Poland was
fully confident that the Director-General, in making his appointments, would take into account criteria
such as diversity of experience, including relations with the business community, specific regionalexperience, and gender balance.  If a majority of Members concluded that there was no need to have a
quick decision, Members could put this matter on hold until after the Third Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Hungary said that in the envisaged review, his delegation would argue
forcefully for fewer DDG posts than the present four, but was ready to go along with maintaining the
status quo for a certain time.  Hungary remained convinced that DDGs were not representatives of
different regions, but rather should be appointed on the basis of professional and personal merit.  It
was the prerogative of the Director-General himself to select his closest collaborators.
The representative of Uruguay said that the Chairman's proposal was viable, practical,
pragmatic and reasonable, and his delegation could accept it.  This decision should not be delayed any
longer than strictly necessary.  Regarding the review of the senior management structure, the same
group entrusted with developing a new procedure for the appointment of the Director-General could
have terms of reference that included the task of determining the most efficient number of DDGs.
Uruguay would work in this group to substantially reduce that number.  He asked for clarificationregarding the date of entry into effect of a future decision on the number of DDGs, and suggested it
would be logical to have that decision apply after Mr. Supachai's term of office.  While the
appointments came within the Director-General's competence, two criteria should be kept in mind:
merit, and that the regions of Latin America, Asia and Africa should be represented.  Uruguay
supported the Chairman's decision to bring this ma tter to the General Council at the present meeting,
as it required immediate resolution, and urged those countries who could not yet go along with the
Chairman's proposal to do so as soon as possible.  Uruguay was certain that the Director-General had
heard the views and interests expressed at the present meeting concerning, for example, geographical
distribution of the DDG posts, and he noted that  Uruguay supported the statement by Mexico on
behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries that three out of the five senior management
positions should be held by individuals from developing countries.  Uruguay was confident that the
Director-General would take into consideration this  element, together with other elements such as
merit and professional capability of the candidate, and would return to Members with a viable
proposal.  Regarding the term of the DDGs to be appointed, it would be logical for this to be for three
years, so that these deputies could accompany him in his term.  They might then be extended for
several months after the end of Mr. Moore's term in order to give Mr. Supachai some support in his
responsibilities while he was deciding on his ow n appointments.  Concerning the review of the
number of DDG posts, his delegation could go along with the proposal that this be taken up after the
Third Ministerial Conference and completed by September 2000, as this would allow a calm
consideration of this matter without any candidates on the horizon, and in the knowledge that
whatever was decided would apply later.  This was also true of the review of procedures for the
appointment of the Director-General.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation had always believed, and continued to
believe, that four was an appropriate number of DDGs.  Mexico shared the view of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries that three of the five  senior management posts should be assigned toWT/GC/M/48
Page 13
individuals from developing countries.  The 1997 Decision with a view to substantially reducing the
number of DDG posts had been taken at a time when no one envisioned launching a work programme
at the Third Ministerial Conference that would, fo r some countries, involve an ambitious round of
negotiations.  This reconfirmed Mexico's original preference for four DDGs.  He recalled that in the
consultations on this matter, Mexico had indicated it could accept the Chairman's proposal as long asthe review clause contained in it was limited in tim e, and this had been incorporated in the proposal
before the General Council.  However, Mexico had not been advised in advance of the content of that
proposal, and he thus had no instructions on it.  He thus agreed with Morocco that a short time was
needed for consultations with capitals.  The only issue that was being discussed at the present meeting
was the number of DDGs.  All other aspects would have to be covered by applying the rules of
procedure already agreed, unless a change to those procedures was agreed during the review process.
The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation endorsed Malaysia's statement,
and would not stand in the way of a consensus on the Chairman's proposal in view of the urgency of
this matter and the need to preserve the WTO's credibility.  It was important that the DDGs appointed
be given responsibilities adequate to justify the funds attributed to these posts.  The appropriate term
for the DDGs to be appointed would be three years, as this was the term of each Director-General.Regarding the review to be conducted, his delegation wished to underline several issues.  One was the
value-for-money element, and for this the General Council might want to examine the responsibilities
assigned to the soon-to-be-appointed DDGs in the course of the review.  The Philippines would have
difficulty justifying the concept of geographical representation, especially since the membership and
geography of the WTO was ever-changing, and the decision on the number of DDGs should not bebased on such a concept.  Rather it should be ba sed on the functions the DDGs would have to perform
and the competence they would bring to this positi on.  It would be incumbent on the next Director-
General to take into account the views and reco mmendations that would come out of the review
process, and this should help to clarify the whole management structure of the WTO and thus
strengthen the organization.
The representative of the Czech Republic said that his delegation's position remained
unchanged.  While its preference was to reduce the number of DDGs, under the present circumstances
it could fully support the proposal to maintain the status quo of four DDGs.  In doing so, it was guided
by the necessity to approach the issue of the number of DDGs with a spirit of pragmatism and
flexibility and by the desire to complete the process of consultations as soon as possible.  His
delegation's acceptance of the proposal was not contingent on any prerequisite.  However, itunderstood that the proposal was about the number of DDGs and not about specific individuals or the
geographical distribution of the posts.  The appointme nt of DDGs was the prerogative of the Director-
General who, after consulting the Members, should be able to select his collaborators.  The Czech
Republic had no doubt that the Director-General would base his choice on the merits of the candidates
and the needs of the organization, and that he would take into account a global balance and Members'concerns and aspirations.  His delegation hoped that this issue could be resolved before the end of the
week.
The representative of the Slovak Republic said that her delegation favoured a reduction in the
number of DDGs to two, but could accept, as a maximum, four DDGs to provide support for the
Director-General, according to the Chairman's proposal.
The representative of Hong Kong, China clarified that her delegation had said that Members
were effectively deciding now to have four DDGs for six years, but not that they would be the same
DDGs for the entire period, nor that they should be  appointed for a term of six years.  However,
several delegations had indicated in informal consultations and at the present meeting that it would be
invidious to change the structure of DDGs in between the consecutive appointments of Mr. Moore
and Mr. Supachai.  Thus, if the General Council agreed on four DDGs now, it was agreeing on four
for six years.  Her delegation had already drawn attention to the "accounting" consequences of such aWT/GC/M/48
Page 14
decision, and supported Panama's and Jamaica's sugges tion that it would be inappropriate to leave the
soon-to-be-appointed DDGs in suspense as to whether they would have a job beyond the date of the
completion of the review in September 2000.
The representative of Sri Lanka reiterated his delegation's position that there had to be a
balanced geographical distribution of DDGs in such a way that three of the five senior management
posts would be filled by an individual from each of the three regions of Africa, Asia and Latin
America so that the important balance of developed and developing countries' interests could be
safeguarded.  Geographical distribution was a political reality in the organization, and his delegation
hoped that the Director-General would be able to achieve this in his appointments in harmony with
the important criteria of the individual merit of the candidates already in the field.
The representative of Brazil said that in the light of the consultations held on this matter and
the opinions expressed by the Director-General, Members should agree as soon as possible with the
Chairman's proposed course of action, and with as few footnotes or conditions as possible.  Other
aspects of this matter could be looked into later in the course of a review.  If this basic principle were
agreed, Members could simply decide on the Chairman's proposal within the next few days.  A furthermeeting would not be necessary, as delegations could agree that if there were no objection by a
certain date, the proposal would be considered as agreed.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation agreed with much of the logic set
out by Hong Kong, China, had supported the notion of two DDGs, and was keen to see a rigorous
review of this matter undertaken.  However, there was a need for a practical and effective solution
conducive to getting on with work, and his delegation could therefore support the Chairman's
proposal.  New Zealand agreed with Panama and ot hers that the results of the review should not
interfere with normal terms for the new deputies.  As stipulated in General Council decisions, it was
for the present Director-General, and in three years'  time for the next Director-General, to establish
what he saw as the most balanced and effective team of deputies achievable.
The representative of Morocco said that his delegation agreed with New Zealand's statement,
and would adhere to the procedure outlined by Brazil, on the condition that it was made clear exactly
what Members were being asked to agree to.  Ultimately it was up to the Director-General to make his
selection of deputies.  There was no point in having a review if the results of that review would apply
only after six years.
The representative of Brazil said that it was his delegation's understanding that the
compromise that had emerged from the consultations on this matter was that the number of four
DDGs seemed more feasible, for reasons of practicality and after hearing from the Director-General,
and that there would be a review.  One should not try to decide now what should emerge from the
review, as this would prolong the discussion indefinitely.
The representative of Australia said that his delegation was sympathetic to Morocco's call for
clarification.  Paragraph 6 met all of Australia's requirements as set out in the informal meeting of the
General Council.  The difficulty was that the only standing decision was that of 1997 to reducesubstantially the number of DDGs.  Members might choose to reverse that Decision after the review,
or to support a number of four DDGs for a tempor ary time for the sake of expediency.  The reality
was that the standing Decision of 1997 had to be addressed and could not be ignored.  That was the
key point of departure for the review.  There was su fficient clarity in the text put forward by the
Chairman.  Paragraphs 5 and 6 struck the right balance, for the time being, for this exercise ofexpediency.
The representative of Pakistan said that there was a need to be clear about what Members
were doing and why.  The Chairman's proposal called for maintaining the status quo ante of fourWT/GC/M/48
Page 15
DDGs.  The questions that had been put arose out of practical and political considerations.  Some of
these questions were absolutely legitimate in the light of the Decision of July 1999 on the
appointment of the next Director-General (WT/L/308 ).  The penultimate paragraph of that Decision
said that the General Council " further agrees  that the Director-General shall appoint Deputy
Directors-General in consultation with Members, taking into account the views of the otherdesignated Director-General, and the need to maintain equitable geographical balance and being
bound by any decisions of the General Council with regard to ensuring continuity at the senior
management level of the Organization."  Several things arose from this paragraph that impacted on
the decision currently before the General Council.  Some of the statements made at the present
meeting were not consistent with the stipulations in the July 1999 Decision.  Thus, the questions
posed and the clarifications sought were legitimate.  All that was needed was a statement from the
Director-General that he was aware of these stipul ations and would observe and respect them in his
selection of deputies.  He highlighted his delegation's position that of the five senior management
positions, three should go to individuals from Asia, Africa and Latin America.  This was a legitimate
expectation of the developing countries.  In the status quo ante, three of the DDGs were from
developing countries.  Reducing the number of DDGs would not be consistent with the organization
better reflecting the developing countries' concerns.  He urged those delegations who had said that theselection of DDGs was up to the Director-General to recognize that the developing countries had the
right to voice their concerns and to expect that the Director-General would be responsive to these
expectations.  On that basis and that expectation, Pakistan was prepared to accept the Chairman's
proposal.
The representative of Morocco said his delegation's suggestion was for clarity as to when the
results of the review would be applied.  Morocco's understanding from paragraph 6 of the proposal
was that any change agreed in the review would apply to Mr. Supachai's appointments, including if
the number of DDGs were reduced to two.
The Director-General said that it was up to the General Council to decide on the number of
DDGs he would be assigned to help in carrying out his tasks, and he would then have to decide on the
appointments.  He was obliged to protect and put forth Mr. Supachai's point of view, which would no
doubt be that he should have a free hand in his term.  It would be unfair for anything to be done that
would inhibit that.  Mr. Supachai would have the re sults of the review before him when he made his
own selection of DDGs.  The General Council would take a decision on the number and would advise
him that the selections should be as broad-based as possible.  The results of that review need not be in
contradiction to the selections made or to be made.
The representative of India said that his delegation could go along with a situation in which
the current Director-General's appointments would be for the duration of his own term, and the next
Director-General would then select his own deputies.  It was not unreasonable for Members to expectthe Director-General, in making those appointments, to take into consideration their aspirations and
expectations.  As his delegation had said, it would not like to see the balance at the senior
management level be tilted against the developing countries.  He reiterated India's support for
Mexico's statement on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries and trusted that the
Director-General would take this aspect into consideration.
The Chairman asked the delegations of Mexico and Morocco whether they could join a
consensus on the proposal.
The representative of Morocco asked that the meeting be suspended for 24 hours so that he
could consult with his capital.  His recommendation to his authorities would be positive.WT/GC/M/48
Page 16
The representative of Mexico said that while his delegation had no reservation regarding the
proposal, it could not go along with any proposal that his authorities had not seen beforehand.  Like
Morocco, his recommendation would be positive.
The representative of Turkey suggested that the decision could be taken ad referendum with
48 hours allowed for any delegation to object to it.  This would obviate the need for a further meeting
on this issue.
The representative of Venezuela supported Turkey's suggestion.
The representative of Morocco said that his delegation could not accept any decision by the
General Council ad referendum as this would prejudge the decision by capitals and would set a bad
precedent.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation could not accept an ad referendum
decision either.  However, if there were no indication from any Member within a fixed time that it
could not accept the proposal, the decision could be considered as accepted and there would be noneed for a further meeting
The representative of Canada said that Turkey's suggestion was reasonable.  The previous
week a decision had been taken on a "no objection" basis where one delegation needed more time to
consult its capital.
The Chairman suggested that the proposal be considered as agreed provided there was no
objection to it by 11 October.
The representative of Morocco said that his delegation could agree to this suggestion.
The General Council took note of the statements and so agreed .2
5. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce (WT/L/274, S/L/74, G/C/W/158, IP/C/18,
WT/COMTD/19)
The Chairman recalled that at the Special Session of the General Council on 24 and
25 September 1998, a Work Programme on Electronic Commerce had been established.
Paragraph 1.2 of the work programme provided that the General Council "shall play a central role in
the whole process and keep the work programme under continuous review through a standing item on
its agenda".  It also provided that the bodies charged with implementing the Work Programme – the
Council for Trade in Services, the Council for Trad e in Goods, the Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights and the Committee for Trade and Development – shall report or
provide information to the General Council on their respective work by 30 July 1999.  The reports of
these bodies were now before the General Counc il in documents S/L/74, G/C/W/158, IP/C/18 and
WT/COMTD/19 respectively.  He also noted that the European Communities and Canada had
recently submitted communications in documents WT/GC/W/306 and 339 respectively, which wouldbe examined in the context of the preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation would like to see a continuation of the
Work Programme in the current phase and was considering whether the vehicle for such work should
be the existing subsidiary bodies or a distinct working group.  Among the areas that would need to be
                                                     
2 The Chairman's proposal contained in his statement (WT/GC/27) was considered as agreed since no
objections were received by 11 October 1999.WT/GC/M/48
Page 17
addressed in the Work Programme was the classification of electronic commerce and the applicability
of the TRIPS Agreement to electronic commerce.  Malaysia could not support an indefinite extension
of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, but would consider a temporary
extension provided it knew beforehand the period of that extension.
The representative of Australia said that his delegation commended the work of the various
WTO bodies as a comprehensive guide to the trade-related issues relating to global electronic
commerce.  The Work Programme effectively demonstr ated the applicability of existing trade rules to
electronic commerce, and the value of maintaining th e guideline of technological neutrality in the
application of those rules, bearing in mind also the impossibility of establishing a distinct regulatory
domain for international trade transacted through electronic commerce technologies.  The Work
Programme has affirmed that electronic delivery of services fell within the scope of the GATS, thatthe supply of services by electronic means was permitted unless otherwise scheduled, that all GATS
provisions applied to the supply of services through electronic means, and that the provisions of the
TRIPS Agreement applied to electronic commerce.  Insofar as the results of the Work Programme to
date demonstrated a need for further action, that work should be taken forward in sectoral negotiations
on an issue-by-issue basis.  His delegation was not convinced of the need to extend the WorkProgramme.  Most of the work on electronic commerce could and should be handled in the services
negotiations, assuming the principle of technology-neutrality was accepted, and there was not enough
left in the Work Programme to warrant setting up a separate negotiating group on electronic
commerce.  Members should agree on an indefinite extension of the current practice of not imposing
customs duties on electronic transmissions at the Third Ministerial Conference.
Australia supported the Community's proposal that Ministers agree that domestic regulation
of the electronic means of delivery should be in accordance with the transparent, minimalist type of
regulating envisaged in Article VI of the GATS.  His delegation urged Members to support the
UNCITRAL
3 model law on electronic commerce, as this would help harmonize domestic legislation,
and noted that Australia's legislation was consistent with this model.  Australia considered that the
GATS Annex on Telecommunications and the provisions of the GATS reference paper on basic
telecommunications applied to internet access and internet network services.  The Third Ministerial
Conference should affirm this, and this view was supported by other delegations on classification and
scheduling of new services related to electronic commerce, and classification of electronic
transmissions with a physical equivalent.  In general, Australia encouraged the view that the
classification process should aim for the maximum separation between the nature of the servicessupplied and the means of their supply.  Applying the principle of technological neutrality and
electronically delivered services – such as banking over the internet – did not create a new banking
service.  A pragmatic approach should be followed, recognizing that on the whole, the development of
electronic commerce was simply an accentuated form of existing trends in international trade.  On
clarification of the distinction between GATS modes of supply in situations where a service wassupplied by electronic means, Australia supported initiatives to promote opportunities for developing
countries.  His delegation noted that the question of access costs was crucial to the growth of many
small and medium enterprises operating on the internet, and urged Members to recognize the need for
fair and equitable international internet pricing.
The representative of Brazil said that according to the Work Programme there was no
deadline by which this work should be concluded.  Unless a decision was taken otherwise, the work
continued.  The mandate from Ministers was to review the whole of the Declaration on Electronic
Commerce, including the standstill on customs duties and the Work Programme.  The reports of the
four subsidiary bodies could be forwarded to Ministers in order to show the progress made in theimplementation of the Work Programme.  Eventually, the General Council was to make
                                                     
3 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.WT/GC/M/48
Page 18
recommendations to the Third Ministerial Conference concerning, for example, the standstill on
customs duties, the adoption of principles, and the creation of a working group.
The representative of Hungary, on behalf of the CEFTA Members, recalled that the
Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce adopted by Ministers at the Geneva Ministerial
Conference called on the General Council to establish a comprehensive work programme to examine
all trade-related aspects of global electronic commerce and to report on the progress of the work
programme with any recommendations for action to the Third Ministerial Conference.  Although
implementation of the Work Programme had been so mewhat slower than anticipated, the reports of
the relevant subsidiary bodies showed that progress had been made.  There seemed to be agreement
on a number of important issues, some of which ha d been highlighted in Canada's submission, and
there were clearer positions and concepts on others.  However, it was unlikely that consensus could bereached on all of the outstanding issues by the time of the next Ministerial Conference.  Therefore, the
report to that Conference should contain a factual summary of the work, clearly indicating the
progress achieved, and should recommend continuation of the Work Programme and call for another
report to the next Ministerial Conference.  The Working Party should focus on the genuinely WTO
trade-related issues and leave other problems and analytical work to other appropriate fora.  It was notnecessary to establish a working group or a committee of experts on electronic commerce, since
except for the classification issue, there were no re al cross-cutting/horizontal elements in the Work
Programme, and the issues could be best handled in the relevant WTO bodies.  Regarding the
outstanding issues to be included in the work conducted by WTO bodies and negotiating groups, for
the time being the Work Programme should not be part of the next round of negotiations and shouldbe kept on a separate track.  Hungary could agree to a time-bound extension of the current practice of
not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation's position was similar
to that of the ASEAN Members and Brazil, and shared much of the CEFTA Members' statement.  The
reports of the relevant WTO bodies on the Work Programme showed that discussions had been very
productive but had not led to any consensus.  Therefore, it was premature to undertake any initiatives
that would take Members beyond the mandate.  The latter should simply be reaffirmed and continued
in its present state.  Renewal of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions would
have to be conditioned on the study to be undertaken on the internet.  Paragraph 33 of the report of the
Committee on Trade and Development put the questi on as to what impact electronic commerce was
likely to have on customs revenue in developing countries, and how significant the duties were onparticular products traded electronically in specific countries.  These questions had to be examined in
order to assess the impact on revenue, and before any decision could be taken on renewing the
moratorium.
The representative of India said that her delegation shared the views of Brazil and the
Dominican Republic.  Important issues had been raised that had to be discussed further, and India
could not agree with Hungary's assessment that there was agreement on a number of issues contained
in the reports, since those reports indicated that discussions had been of a preliminary nature.  As
Brazil had said, it was the whole Declaration that was to be reviewed, including both the standstill and
the Work Programme together.  One could not take a categorical position on one element withoutdealing with the other.
The representative of Mexico said that the General Council should take note of the reports by
the relevant WTO bodies, which contained no recommendations as such.  Given that in the course of
the preparatory work for the Third Ministerial Conference, proposals on electronic commerce hadbeen made, the most appropriate course of action might be to take note of comments by delegations
regarding the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions and to leave the corresponding
decision to be taken, to those preparations or to the Ministers themselves.WT/GC/M/48
Page 19
The representative of the United States recalled that Ministers had charged the General
Council with a mandate in a separate Declaration on Electronic Commerce in 1998.  That Declaration
stated that "[w]hen reporting to our third session, th e General Council will review this declaration, the
extension of which will be decided by consensus, taking into account the progress of the work
programme."  Thus, the entire Declaration was a package and all elements of it had to be decided, asBrazil and India had recognized.  Not only the moratorium on customs duties, but the entire Work
Programme, was a question for extension.  Ministers had also asked the General Council to produce a
report on progress in the Work Programme and any recommendations for action to be submitted to the
Third Ministerial Conference.  While the General Council had not been able to take up substantive
cross-cutting issues in any depth and had not had a detailed examination of the reports from the
relevant WTO bodies, it would make a status report  to Ministers that would include some of the
results arising from those bodies' consideration of this matter that Members could agree on.  Herdelegation would expect those recommendations to include the following:  (1) continuation of the
practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions, (2) results of the work
programme and (3) continuation of the Work Programme.  Brazil's ideas on how to fashion the report
might be helpful.  In response to the statement by the Dominican Republic, she noted that in the WTO
Symposium on Trade and Development in February 1999, a majority of developing country expertshad stressed the importance of maintaining a liberal environment for electronic commerce, because
developing countries were already using this medium to advance their development.  Further, a study
by the Secretariat initially provided that the revenue effects of duty free transmissions were minimal,
and that the damage to economic activity of tryi ng to impose customs duties would far outweigh the
minor duties that could be collected.  To try to impose duties on electronic transmissions wouldseriously harm the overall economic and technological gain to developing countries.  It was also noted
by some experts that enforcement of duty collection would be difficult and costly.  Lastly, her
delegation had doubts as to whether an electronic transmission through cyberspace was even an
importation for duty purposes in the context of, for example, GATT 1994.
The representative of Hong Kong, China agreed  with delegations who had said there was a
clear need for further work in this area.  The ma in area was the need for the General Council to report
progress on the Work Programme to the Third Ministerial Conference with any recommendations for
action, and Members' first priority should be to ensure that this report was made.  As the Dominican
Republic had noted, while there had been much debate, there had not been much progress.  There had
been valuable educational work, but not many agreed conclusions reached, which was regrettable.
Not all of the suggestions on the table for principles and areas of further work could be resolved in thenext two months.  Thus, there was a need for urgent work on the report, and further work after the
Third Ministerial Conference was clearly desirable within the scope of WTO work.  Second,
Members had to make recommendations for action.  Several had already emerged, the main one being
the proposal for extension of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.  Hong
Kong, China could support this in a time-limited way.  Other suggestions dealt with basic principles,such as technological neutrality and that current WTO rules covered all forms of electronic
commerce.  These remained to be agreed, and it was important that Members find ways to tackle
them.  His delegation remained cautious about suggestions for new bodies to discuss this matter, for
the reasons set out by Hungary.
The representative of Pakistan said that the reports from the relevant WTO bodies indicated
that while some progress had been made in explaining certain concepts, a substantial number of issues
remained unclear in terms of definition, classification, scope, morality and privacy issues, and fiscal
and revenue implications.  Paragraph 26 in the report of the Council for Trade in Services,
paragraph 11.1 in the report of the Council for Trad e in Goods, paragraph 12 in the report of the
Council on TRIPS, and paragraph 24 in the report of the Committee on Trade and Development all
clearly stated that there was no conclusion of work in any of these bodies and that a number of issues
had been raised that required further discussion.  Thus, much work remained to be done before anyWT/GC/M/48
Page 20
position could be taken on the formulation of rules or principles, or the application of an indefinite
moratorium on customs duties.  Pakistan sought guidance from the Chairman as to how to proceed.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation was very interested in electronic
commerce and in the role the WTO could play in further promoting it.  Since substantial discussions
had already been held on this complex issue, he would address procedural matters regarding the
process towards the Third Ministerial Conference.  The first question concerned the report the General
Council was to submit to that Conference, as mandated by the Declaration on Global Electronic
Commerce.  According to the Declaration, the report should indicate the progress in the Work
Programme and make recommendations for action by Ministers.  On the occasion of this report, the
General Council was also to review the Declaration itself in order to decide on its extension.  How to
make such a report might need to be discussed in order to best utilize the limited time available beforethe Third Ministerial Conference.  The second question concerned the Declaration of the Third
Ministerial Conference;  Japan had noted the idea of a separate declaration on electronic commerce
and wished to give further consideration to this matter and to revert to it at a later stage.
The representative of the European Communities st ressed the positive, if slow, progress in the
various bodies participating in the Work Programme.  It was important that the General Council
endorse what had already been achieved and encourage the subsidiary bodies to continue their work.
The progress made had to be reflected at the Third Ministerial Conference.  The Community and other
delegations had submitted papers with proposals that could be discussed in order to achieve this
result.  The Community's paper aimed to show what progress had been made, and his delegationremained open to discussing various contents and formulations with its partners.  The paper from
Canada also marked those points on which consensus was emerging, and the Community agreed with
the purpose of that paper.  Regarding the proposal to have an experts oversight group, his delegation
considered that many of the issues listed for further work were already being dealt with in the relevant
Councils or Committee because of the specific individual expertise of those bodies.  It wouldtherefore be unnecessary to add a further layer to the process.
The representative of Venezuela said that Brazil's statement was very appropriate because
what was at stake was the possibility of assessing and achieving results on a number of issues related
to the phenomenon of electronic commerce, with im plications on trade, existing WTO rules and
developing countries.  While the reports from the relevant WTO bodies were useful, none of the
entities examining this issue – either inside or outside the WTO – had any clear answers as to the
implications of electronic commerce.  The Declaration stipulated that the Work Programme should
recognize that work was also being undertaken in other international fora.  However, it was difficult
to say whether any of these other bodies had been able to define all of the contours of electronic
commerce.  The relevant WTO bodies had looked into a number of these issues and many points
remained to be assessed.  Regarding the continuation of the moratorium on customs duties, it wouldbe difficult to define what the implications of this would be until the relevant evaluations had been
made.  The recommendation to Ministers should be that examination of electronic commerce should
continue and that there should be one working group that would continue and build on the work
already done under the Work Programme and would examine the continuation of the moratorium.  It
appeared that no delegation at present could see the advantages of not maintaining the moratorium forthe time being.  It was important that Ministers be given the message that the Work Programme
should continue, that Members should focus their efforts in a specific working group devoted to this
task, and that the continuation of the moratorium was a viable option.  Much work remained to be
done, and Venezuela still had concerns regarding the implications for developing countries, the
transfer of technology, and trade effects.  However, the central element was the major opportunityoffered by electronic commerce, which should not be looked at from the perspective of the same
criteria that would apply to other elements for negotiation at the Third Ministerial Conference.WT/GC/M/48
Page 21
The representative of Jamaica said that the reports of the subsidiary bodies were instructive.
While there was now greater clarity on a number of issues there were still several matters that
required further examination, such as those of importance to developing countries found in the
Illustrative List at the end of the report of the Committee on Trade and Development.  Electronic
commerce held significant potential for all countries, including small developing countries, and theexamination and clarification of issues should continue under the Work Programme.  Jamaica
supported a time-bound extension of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.
The representative of Egypt said that in  his delegation's view, work under the Work
Programme should continue in the four WTO subsidiary bodies, and there was no need to establish
any new working group on electronic commerce.  Egypt could not accept a permanent extension of
the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and of the inputs
received from the relevant WTO bodies regarding implementation of the work programme, and take
note of the fact that this matter was being taken up in the preparatory process for the Third Ministerial
Conference.  He also proposed that the General Counci l revert to this matter as early as possible in the
year 2000 in light of the reports from the relevant WTO bodies, any further work that might be carried
out by those bodies in the interim period, and any agreements that might be reached at the Third
Ministerial Conference on the issue of electronic commerce.  In accordance with the above, the
General Council would not revert to this matter at its November meeting.
The representative of the Philippines asked why the preparatory process for the Third
Ministerial Conference was being mixed up with the Work Programme under consideration by the
General Council.
The Chairman said that reports of the subsidiary bodies on progress under the Work
Programme would be presented to Ministers through the annual report of the General Council.  The
preparatory process would hopefully produce recommendations to be decided by Ministers.  The
General Council would then take up this matter again after the Third Ministerial Conference in the
light of the decisions that might be taken there.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation could accept the Chairman's
suggestion that discussion of this matter be con tinued in the preparatory process, but would expect
that the separate nature of the 1998 mandate from Ministers would be maintained.  However, the
United States was concerned with the Chairman's proposal that the Work Programme continue after
the Third Ministerial Conference, as this was a question that Ministers would decide.  She noted that
there was a separate Declaration on electronic commerce that contained a mandate regarding the
continuation of the entire Declaration, and the latter had component parts including the WorkProgramme.
The Chairman said that since this matter would be presented to Ministers on the basis of the
preparatory process, the decision of Ministers would guide the General Council on how to proceed.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal.
6. Five-year review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994
(WT/GC/W/228)
The Chairman recalled that the exemption under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 provided in
sub-paragraph 3(b) for a five-year review after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement inWT/GC/M/48
Page 22
order to examine whether the conditions which created the need for the exemption still prevailed.  The
exemption would thereafter be reviewed every two years for as long as it was in force.  At its meeting
on 15 July 1999 the General Council considered a communication from the United States on this
subject and agreed to revert to this matter at the present meeting.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that his delegation
concurred with the points raised in Japan's communication (WT/GC/W/344) on this issue.
Article 3(b) of GATT 1994 required the Ministeria l Conference to review any exemptions invoked
under Article 3(a) to determine whether "the conditions which created the need for the exemption still
prevail".  In that context, the questions posed by Japan in its document were pertinent and answers to
them would allow Members to be better informed of the reasons behind the US request and to review
the exemption.  Such exemptions were serious devi ations from the fundamental principles of national
treatment and m.f.n., and could neither be treated lightly nor easily approved without clear
justifications.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation took note of the efforts by the United
States to answer the questions Members had on this matter.  However, to date the explanations had
been neither sufficient nor persuasive.  In or der to conduct a meaningful review, it would be
indispensable that the questions listed in WT/GC/W/344 be answered, and Japan hoped the US would
provide satisfactory responses to those and other relevant questions.
The representatives of the European Communities, Panama , Norway , Australia , Korea ,
Dominican Republic and India  welcomed Japan's submission in WT/GC/W/344 which they said
raised important issues that needed to be fully addressed.
The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation fully endorsed the
arguments contained in Japan's submission and suppor ted the questions put to the United States on
this issue.  The review foreseen in paragraph 3(b) had to be substantive and not limited to a pro-forma
verification of whether any changes had been made in the relevant US legislation.  The United States
should provide clear justifications as to why, more than fifty years after the entry into force of GATT
and of the Protocol of Provisional Application, such a special exemption was still needed for the Jones
Act.  Members had to move with the times and had to ensure that WTO rules and commitments, and
their own individual obligations, reflected the reality of the changing world.  The United States could
make a gesture in dealing with 50 year-old legislation that was clearly not adapted to the present.
The representative of Panama agreed that a substantive review should be held, and not a
summary or pro-forma one as suggested by the United States.  However, even if the scope of the
review were limited to what the US had suggested, his delegation was not convinced there had been
no changes in the legislation or that its implemen tation had been such that it did not warrant a more
detailed review.  Panama would therefore not su pport any conclusion that the review mandated in
paragraph 3(b) had been completed.  This review should be taken up by the Council for Trade in
Services or by another subsidiary body, under the General Council's supervision.  Should the review
fall within the competence of several subsidiary bodies, a working group could be established in order
to carry out this work in a consistent manner.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the Jones Act was outmoded legislation
that did not conform with fundamental GATT/WTO  principles.  Pursuant to paragraph 3(b) of
GATT 1994, Members had the obligation to "review whether the conditions which created the need
for the exemption still prevail".  While the material provided thus far in this respect was useful, the
review could not be properly carried out because the information provided was not sufficient.  His
delegation supported Japan's request for more detailed information.WT/GC/M/48
Page 23
The representative of Norway said that his delegation hoped the US would provide
satisfactory answers to the pertinent questions list ed in Japan's submission, as the exemption at issue
involved basic WTO principles.  A substantive and serious review should be held and explanations
given for the continuation of the exemption.  The review should not be considered an automatic
procedure.  Rather, the US should provide substantive explanations and discuss alternative solutionsto maintaining the exemption.  His delegation reserved the right to revert to this issue.
The representative of Australia said that the US exemption was a significant derogation which
only one Member enjoyed.  Like others, Australia would welcome comprehensive responses to the
issues raised by Japan, as these were important and required substantive treatment.  His delegation
noted Panama's suggestion that the review be undertaken either by existing bodies or by a working
group.  In the course of that review, the US would have ample opportunity to explain why thisderogation was still needed.
The representative of New Zealand said that the fact that a review of the exemption had been
provided for clearly indicated that the exemption should not apply in perpetuity, and the United States
should provide further information about the steps it intended to take to review its position internally,
particularly on the eve of a Ministerial Conference that would hopefully result in major market access
openings.
The representative of Canada said that his delegation supported a substantive review as
required by paragraph 3(b).  The upcoming negotiations would provide an opportunity for the US to
consider amendments to, or repeal of, the Jones Act as part of a multilateral effort to liberalize the
maritime transport sector.
The representative of Korea said that paragraph 3(b) called for a collective review of whether
the underlying rationale for the exemption in question still prevailed.  The continued existence of the
relevant legislation itself did not constitute the conditions that had created the need for the exemption.
The exemption in question was a deviation from fundamental WTO principles, and Korea hoped that
the review would lead to an effective solution that would address this legal aberration.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation endorsed the
statements by Japan, the European Communities and Canada.  This was a highly relevant issue in
view of the forthcoming round of negotiations.  To ensure, in particular, the success of the servicesnegotiations, this distortion in the maritime transport sector should be removed.
The representative of India agreed that this important issue had to be carefully examined.  He
recalled that in the context of the maritime trans port services negotiations, because of the Jones Act,
Members had suspended the operation of m.f.n. obligations until the conclusion of the next round ofnegotiations on such services.  Therefore, it was necessary from both a practical and systemic point of
view to look into this issue in detail.
The representative of the United States expressed appreciation to delegations for their
questions and to Japan for its submission in WT/GC/W/344.  The current review was being held
pursuant to paragraph 3(b) of the GATT 1994 which required the Ministerial Conference to review
the exemption not later than five years after the en try into force of the WTO Agreement.  The review
had started at the General Council meeting in July 1999, and in September her delegation had
organized consultations on the operation of the exemption, in which a number of WTO Members had
participated.  She was ready to discuss this issue with Members that had not been able to attend theSeptember meeting.  Because Article IV:2 of the WTO Agreement provided that the General Council
should conduct the functions of the Ministerial Conf erence between meetings of the Ministers, and
because the United States did not believe this issue to be of a character meriting Ministers'
involvement, her delegation had referred the review of the exemption to the General Council.  At theWT/GC/M/48
Page 24
July 1999 General Council meeting, it had appeared that some delegations were not completely
familiar with the background to the exemption and that many were not acquainted with the annual
statistical reports submitted by the United States in  connection with this exemption.  The exemption in
question was equivalent to the GATT 1947 "grandfather clause", and apart from the reporting
requirement, which the US had met, the only condition necessary for the maintenance of thisexemption was the continued existence of the mandatory non-conforming legislation.  In that context,
in addition to its submission in WT/GC/W/228, the US had provided additional background
information in order to facilitate the General Council's discussion.  The exemption provided under
paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 was not a waiver but an important part of the GATT 1994 which had
its origins in paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol of Provisional Application of the GATT 1947.  That
paragraph provided that Part II of the GATT 1947 applied to Contracting Parties "to the fullest extent
not inconsistent with existing legislation".  Since the WTO Agreement was not applied by itsMembers provisionally, and since the GATT 1994 had no counterpart to the GATT 1947 Protocol of
Provisional Application, the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of GATT 1994 was necessary to
deal with non-conforming provisions of domestic legislation of a non-discretionary character in the
specific area addressed by the exemption.  On 20 December 1994, the United States had invoked the
provisions of paragraph 3(a) with respect to specific legislation that met the requirements of thatparagraph.  The United States' invocation of this exemption had been acknowledged by the Director-
General on the same day, and the US had provided WTO Members with annual statistical reports
pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 3(c) of GATT 1994:  for 1995 in WT/L/112, for 1996 in
WT/L/201, for 1997 in WT/L/257 and for 1998 in WT/L/293.  The only purpose of the review
provided for in paragraph 3(b) was to "examine whether the conditions which created the need for theexemption still prevail" – in other words, whether the legislation continued to be in force and had not
been amended in a way that would disqualify it from coverage under the exemption.  The conditions
that had created the need for the use of this exemption still existed.  Since the invocation of the
exemption in 1994 there had been no amendments, legislative changes, or measures adopted by the
United States that would alter its position in conforming to coverage by the exemption.  In fulfillingthe terms of the exemption, the United States had provided detailed annual reporting of vessel orders
and deliveries from US shipyards as required by paragraph 3(c) of the GATT 1994.  The most recent
statistical report (WT/L/293) showed that 84 per cent of vessels that had been delivered in the US
over the five-year period were fishing vessels with an average gross tonnage of only 102 tons.  The
16 per cent of vessels not used for fishing had an average gross tonnage of only 948 tons.  Of these
104 non-fishing vessels, 34 were tugs, 18 had been purchased by the US Government, 19 were related
to the offshore oil-drilling industry, and the three largest were 20,000-ton tankers, two of which hadbeen sold to the US Government.  These figures demonstrated that even if the market had been
unrestricted, it would have been very small.  The General Council, acting for the Ministerial
Conference, should conclude its examination of th is exemption by noting that the conditions which
had created the need for it still existed.
While the terms of the exemption did not require the US to justify its invocation, she provided
the following context for the legislation.  The core shipbuilding industrial base in the United States,
upon which the US Navy depended to meet its procurement needs had historically been sustained by a
combination of commercial shipbuilding for the domestic trade and military orders.  With defense
orders declining in a tight budget environment, it was critical for US shipbuilders to build commercialships for this trade, if a viable industrial base wa s to be maintained to meet future Navy requirements.
Moreover, the Navy relied on shipyards that performed commercial work for the Jones Act traders for
day-to-day maintenance of naval and surge fleet vessels, such as the "Ready Reserve Fleet".  Vessels
in the "Ready Reserve Fleet" were maintained in a state of readiness by the US Government, capable
of providing strategic sea-lift resources to meet national defense and other national securityrequirements.  She reiterated that the only purpose of the review provided for in paragraph 3(b) was to
"examine whether the conditions which created the need for the exemption still prevail" and that the
conditions that had created the need for the use of this exemption by the United States still existed.WT/GC/M/48
Page 25
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next
meeting.
7. Review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
(a) Statement by the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body
The Chairman, in the absence of Mr. Akao, Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body
("DSB"), read out the latter's statement.  Pursuant to the Decision on the Application and Review of
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), the
Ministerial Conference was invited to complete a full review of dispute settlement rules and
procedures under the WTO within four years after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.  The
Ministerial Conference was to take a decision on whether to continue, modify or terminate suchdispute settlement rules and procedures.  The review had been begun by the DSB in early 1998, at
which time the then-Chairman had held extensive in formal consultations to determine how Members
wished to proceed with the review.  Informal comments submitted by Members were compiled by the
Secretariat, and informal DSB meetings had been held during the remainder of 1998 based on those
comments.  At its special meeting on 8 December 1998, the DSB had agreed to the following:
"In the light of the requirement that a full review of the dispute settlement rules and
procedures take place within four years after the entry into force of the Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization, the Dispute Settlement Body has conducted
extensive discussions in informal meetings.  However, as the discussions have not beencompleted and there remain a number of suggestions by Members that have yet to be
considered, there is a consensus to continue discussions beyond the end of this year.  The
DSB therefore has agreed to propose to the General Council that it decide to continue and to
complete the review process including the preparation of the report by the end of July 1999."
This had been reported to the General Council at its meeting in December 1998, where the
then-Chairman of the DSB had also reported that there had been ten informal meetings of the DSB of
which half had been devoted to discussing the issues on the basis of informal suggestions submitted
by delegations.  The General Council had taken note of the report of the DSB and had taken the
following decision:
"Concerning the continuing review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, the General
Council decides to continue and to complete the review process including the preparation of
the report by the end of July 1999."
At the conclusion of the first reading of the third revision of the compilation of comments
submitted by Members, the Chairman had proposed continuing the discussions in a number of areas inorder to complete the review.  Frequent informal meetings of the DSB on the DSU review had been
convened under Mr. Akao's chairmanship through the end of July 1999 on the basis of Members'
agreement to proceed in this manner.  At its meeting in February 1999, the General Council had had
an extensive discussion regarding a possible interpretation of the relationship between Articles 21.5
and 22 of the DSU.  At the end of that discussion the Chairman of the General Council had concludedas follows:
"Some delegations had considered that these matters could appropriately be the subject of
interpretation.  However, many others clearly did not, and most had registered their concern
about voting.  There had been a large measure of support for taking these issues up in theDSU review on an urgent basis.  He had heard no delegation oppose this initiative.  He
believed that the sense of the meeting was that he, as Chairman, should urge the DSB toWT/GC/M/48
Page 26
consider these matters on an urgent basis and to endeavour to reach agreement on how to
clarify these provisions before the end of July."
The DSB had engaged in such discussions at a number of informal meetings with respect to
the issue of implementation.  Intensive discussions had taken place up to the 31 July deadline and hadcontinued in informal sessions even after that date, as all Members had attempted in good faith to
reach agreement on a recommendation to modify the WTO dispute settlement rules and procedures.
These discussions had not concluded by the 22 September meeting of the DSB, and no agreement had
been reached at that meeting on a recommendation to co ntinue the review.  In light of the above, the
Chairman of the DSB requested the General Council to consider how to proceed and what action to
take, if any, in regard to the DSU review.
The Chairman said that since informal consultations among interested Members on this
matter were still underway, he proposed that the General Council take note of the statement by the
DSB Chairman and agree to revert to this question at its next meeting in the light of the informal
consultations still being held.
Representatives expressed their appreciation to Mr. Akao as Chairman of the DSB for his
work and efforts in many areas, including on the DSU review.
The representative of Mexico said that the period agreed by the General Council to conduct
the review of the DSU had expired on 31 July 1999 and there had been no decision by this body to
extend that period.  After the expiry of this period there had been informal consultations that had had
no formal mandate by the DSB and thus no basis.  The General Council could revert to this matter
only if a Member or the General Council Chairman so decided, but this would not change the fact that
the review period had ended.  Any proposal arising from consultations that had no basis would be out
of place, and his delegation would not agree to any such proposals.
The representative of Malaysia said that the four-year period during which the review
mandated by Ministers was to be completed had ended in December 1998.  However, the General
Council had extended the deadline for completion of the review to 31 July 1999.  That deadline had
come and there had been no agreement to modify the existing DSU.  As Malaysia had stated at the
September 1999 meeting of the DSB, it could not support any further extension of that deadline.
Further, his delegation saw no reason to agree to such an extension, given that the three conditions ithad stipulated had not been met:  (1) that any p ackage of suggested modifications would not contain
provisions that legitimized the admission of unsolicited  amicus curiae  briefs;  (2) that there would be
no opening of the panel process to the public;  and (3) that there would be an explicit agreement or
understanding that in the absence of any agreement to modify it, the existing DSU would continue in
force.  Malaysia had serious concerns regarding the transparency provisions proposed by a fewdelegations, and would not be able to agree to any package that  inter alia  contained any proposal on
amicus curiae  briefs or opening the panel process to the public.  However, his delegation was willing
to further consider the proposal to accelerate the derestriction of documents.  The DSU review had
ended and any informal consultations on it had no legal basis.  Thus, Malaysia proposed that the
General Council decide as follows:  not to extend the deadline for the completion of the DSU review,and to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that given the absence of agreement to modify the
DSU, the present dispute settlement rules and procedures continue in force.
The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation supported Mexico's statement.
Unless there was a consensus to extend the period for the review, it had ended on 31 July 1999.
The representative of Thailand said that his delegation considered the work achieved thus far
on the DSU review to be a remarkable achievement in light of the short time available and the scope
of the mandate for the review.  The recent breakthrough was particularly significant, as it providedWT/GC/M/48
Page 27
hope that a concrete result would be reached in the near future.  According to the Ministerial Decision
on this review, the Ministerial Conference was to take a decision on the results of the review.  It was
still possible to complete the review before the next  such Conference in Seattle.  Thus, it was logical
and legitimate that Members should allow the review work to continue on a de facto basis and within
a specific time-limit, with a view to facilitating a decision on this matter by the Third MinisterialConference.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the mandate for the review on the current
DSU had expired on 31 July 1999 and there had been no consensus to further extend that mandate.
This remained the legal position to date.  More than 300 proposals had been submitted during the
review, but none had achieved a consensus by 31 July 1999.  The remaining task arising from the
Decision on the application and review of the DSU was for the Third Ministerial Conference to "takea decision on whether to continue, modify, or term inate the DSU".  Termination of the DSU was out
of the question, as the integrated dispute settlement mechanism was the cornerstone of the rule-based
multilateral trading system and a major achievement of the Uruguay Round.  The operation of the
DSU had been very effective and no delegation should consider terminating it.  The remaining options
for Ministers were therefore either to continue or to modify the current DSU.  He noted that despitethe fact that the review mandate had expired, intere sted delegations had continued to meet in an open-
ended informal setting to try to reach agreement on a package to be recommended for adoption by
Ministers.  These delegations were meeting intensively during the current and following week with a
view to completing the work by 15 October.  Hong Kong, China had participated in this process
positively and constructively and would continue to do so.  However, at the present juncture hisdelegation wanted to put down two markers:  (1) 15 October was the final deadline, since small
delegations, especially those of least-developed countries, would not have the resources to engage in
any meaningful discussions on the DSU review in view of the more pressing demands of the
preparatory work for the Ministerial Conference;  (2) there were good prospects of agreeing on a
package that covered issues relating to Articles 21 and 22, third party rights, and developing countryMembers, and it would be unfortunate if other sensi tive and politically difficult issues jeopardized the
opportunity of making substantial improvements to the current DSU.
The representative of the United States said that the discussions on the DSU review that had
continued informally since mid-September 1999 had been very productive and should not be
abandoned.  The Marrakesh Declaration, which was the charter for the DSU review, provided that at
the first Ministerial Conference after the completion of the review, Ministers were to take a decisionon whether to continue, modify or terminate the DS U rules and procedures.  Thus, a decision would
have to be taken at the Third Ministerial Conference.  The continuation of the DSU would not happen
automatically, at it would require a consensus decision by Members.  It was clear that certain aspects
of the DSU rules did not work.  However, Members could reach agreement on modifications to the
DSU that would correct these problems in a way all could accept, and which could be agreed at theThird Ministerial Conference.  Were this not to be the case, her delegation would agree to the
continuation of the existing DSU.
The representative of Canada said that Thailand had made a reasonable and wise suggestion.
The DSB Chairman's report indicated that informal sessions had continued after the expiry of the
deadline since all Members had attempted in good faith to reach agreement on a recommendation to
modify the WTO dispute settlement rules and procedures.  In light of that, he asked why Members
would want to stop that good faith in its tracks now .  Real progress had been made in recent weeks
and it would be logical to try to build on that.  Thus, Canada supported the continuation of the review
in the hopes that some of the most critical and important issues facing the WTO dispute settlementsystem, including implementation, could be resolved.  The real deadline for this work was the Third
Ministerial Conference.WT/GC/M/48
Page 28
The representative of Hungary said it was only after the review had been started that
Members had realized there was a fundamental problem with the rules governing the implementation
of DSB recommendations and rulings, which threat ened the multilateral nature of the dispute
settlement mechanism itself and thus had serious implications for the entire WTO system.  Hungary
was among those who, in the context of the DSU review, had attached the highest priority to
clarification of the relationship between Articles 21.5 and 22, and to a timely completion of the DSU
review – i.e. by the July deadline.  In view of the significant progress made in the informal
consultations after the summer break, Hungary had supported the Chairman's proposal to extend the
deadline for the conclusion of the review to 15 October.  His delegation was concerned that consensus
had not emerged on extending the review, as it would be unfortunate if Members were to embark on
new negotiations on broadening and strengthening multilateral disciplines without having fixed a
fundamental problem in the very basis of the multilateral trading system.  Hungary hoped that in spiteof these developments Members would find appropriate ways and means to solve this problem by the
time of the Third Ministerial Conference.
The representative of the European Communities said that the results of the DSB Chairman's
efforts were already tangible and it would be wrong if those efforts went unrecognised or were
allowed to languish.  His delegation therefore agr eed with Thailand and others who had argued in
favour of continuing the review.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation fully agreed with Thailand's assessment.
The dispute settlement system was indeed the backbone of the WTO.  Japan supported a time-bound
de facto continuation of the informal work on the review because there was a realistic prospect of
getting a balanced package to improve the dispute settlement system.  The General Council should not
be prevented from approving such a package purely on the grounds of legal formality.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation agreed with those who had said that the
review period had ended on 31 July 1999 and that any further work on it lacked the necessary legal
basis.  Egypt did not agree to any extension of  the period for the review, and recommended that a
factual report be presented to the Third Ministerial Conference indicating the efforts made during the
review process and emphasizing that the current provisions of the DSU should continue.
The representative of India said that his delegation approached this matter from a systemic
point of view, since the WTO system had in the past been put at risk due to certain disputes.  India
shared the views of Mexico, Malaysia and others that the review had ended.  However, given the
importance of this issue his delegation shared H ong Kong, China's view on the way forward, on the
clear understanding that 15 October would be the final deadline.
The representative of Brazil said that after one and a half years of work on this review,
delegations' attention had been narrowed down to a manageable number of issues that might form the
basis of a package of modifications to the text of the DSU.  The review had been a useful exercise,
even though in some cases it had served more to clarify differences in interpretation of the text and
differing views on the purposes of the dispute settlement rules, than to build consensus.  Brazil
recognized that there were limits to the time a nd resources Members could presently devote to this
issue.  However, given the importance of the main  issue under consideration in the review process –
the question of avoiding unilateral determinations of non-compliance – Brazil was prepared to
continue to participate in the final effort to try to conclude a package of modifications.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation identified closely with Thailand's
statement and agreed with Hong Kong, China th at recent informal consultations had been very
constructive.  New Zealand attached great importance to a clear and effective dispute settlement
mechanism, and suggested that Members make one final and genuine attempt to arrive at a solution inWT/GC/M/48
Page 29
time for the Third Ministerial Conference.  Members should approach this exercise with a sense of
realism about the key issues that could be resolved within the limited time available.
The representative of Indonesia said that from the legal point of view the mandate for the
DSU review had expired on 31 July 1999.  On a de facto basis, informal discussions on the possible
agreement on DSU amendments had continued and were still going on, aimed at facilitating a possible
recommendation to the Ministerial Conference.  However, whether or not the informal discussions
continued, they could not change the mandate and its time-frame, which was stipulated in the
Decision on the Application and Review of the DS U and the subsequent General Council Decision.
As had been agreed at the DSB's September 1999 meeting, a special meeting would be held on
15 October 1999 to adopt the report on the DSU review.  The Chairman of the DSB had also made it
clear that 15 October was a definitive deadline for the review.  In light of this, the informaldiscussions on this matter should conclude not later than 15 October 1999.  There would be no further
extension of the period for the DSU review and th e General Council should consider the adoption of
the decision on this issue at its November meeting.  He reiterated Indonesia’s position on the
proposals on transparency in the context of the DSU:  his delegation was not prepared to negotiate the
proposed opening of DSB proceedings to NGOs, either now or at the Third Mini sterial Conference.  It
was Ministers who would make a final decision on whether to modify, continue or terminate the
application of the existing DSU.  Indonesia's first preference was for a Ministerial decision that would
modify certain provisions of the DSU.  However, if there was no agreement on such modifications –
and this seemed to be the case – Indonesia would urge the General Council to recommend that
Ministers decide that the existing DSU would continue  to apply.  In this regard, the General Council's
recommendation should take into account the following considerations:  (1) the important role of the
DSU in the multilateral trading system;  (2) the urgency of finalizing substantive preparations for the
Third Ministerial Conference;  and (3) the need to facilitate the work of Ministers at that Conference.
The representative of Venezuela said it was clear that the deadline for the review was
31 July 1999 and that work beyond that date was occurring in an informal mode.  However, it would
be worthwhile to continue the good faith efforts that had already been made.  A large number of
countries had been working intensively as a group to overcome some of the difficulties and cope with
the diverse interpretations in the review process.  He asked if it was possible to continue the review
process until the Third Ministerial Conference, and what format would be used for this, in order to
know whether it was worth continuing these efforts.
The representative of Ecuador said that his delegation favoured continuing the review process
on the understanding that final agreement as to any modification of the DSU should be reached by
15 October.  This review could not continue unti l the opening of the Third Ministerial Conference
because some delegations did not have sufficient resources to devote to this review and
simultaneously to preparations for that Conference.  The fact that progress in the review had beenmade only in recent weeks was not owing to the lack of interest of  developing countries, who had
participated actively in that review, but rather to the fact that only recently had the major trading
partners shown any flexibility.  If Members failed to complete the review by 15 October it would be
due to the insistence of certain Members on aspects that were far from gathering a consensus.
The representative of Australia said that his delegation joined those who wanted to see this
work continue and reach a productive conclusion.  Australia agreed that considerable progress had
been made of late and that this warranted continuation of the work, and welcomed India's recognition
of the important systemic issues involved.  The latter were too important to allow a legal technical
point to frustrate the continuation of this work.  Like Canada, his delegation believed that this workshould continue up to the Third Ministerial Conference in order to complete the review.
The representative of Uruguay said that the dispute settlement system was indispensable in
the defense of Members' rights and in order to ensure compliance with WTO obligations.  That systemWT/GC/M/48
Page 30
was of interest to all, and in particular the developing countries and the smaller countries, as it was the
guarantee of safeguarding their interests vis-à-vis  the economic clout of the major trading partners.
Thus, all necessary efforts had to be made to complete the review.  The WTO had always been a
realistic and pragmatic organization, and if agreement were reached in substance, a way would be
found to implement it.
The representative of Singapore said that it would be irresponsible not to continue with work
on the review, as the DSU was the backbone of the WTO and considerable work had already been
done.  Her delegation agreed with Thailand and Hong Kong, China that work should continue with a
view to reaching a consensus decision.  Consensus amendments to the text of the DSU might thus be
deliverable to the Third Ministerial Conference.  Singapore urged Members to continue to show good
faith by being realistic and prudent in their requests for such amendments.
The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation maintained its position, as stated
at the September DSB meeting, that it could accept an extension of the review to 15 October on the
condition that any such decision would include a provision that if no modifications were agreed by
that date, Members would recommend to Ministers that the existing DSU continue in force.  This wasimportant, because should there be no consensus on amendments to the DSU by that date, the
deadline could not be extended beyond it.
The representative of Guatemala said that this subject was of major importance to his country.
Notwithstanding the legal points made by some delegations, Guatemala was willing to continue the
review up to 15 October.  However, even with th is extension his delegation feared that Members
would not be able to conclude the review, and it was thus likely that the recommendation to the Third
Ministerial Conference would simply be to continue with the existing text of the DSU.
The representative of Switzerland said that the dispute settlement system was fundamental to
the multilateral trading system, and it was indispensable to the conclude the present review exercise.
Progress had been made and it would be lamentable to break of the work at the present stage.
Switzerland favoured continuing the review process with a view to coming to a conclusion within the
shortest possible time.
The representative of Mexico recalled that at the September DSB meeting his delegation had
made a specific proposal to continue the informal consultations until 15 October, but there had been
no consensus on that proposal.  The first proof of good faith and responsibility was to respect
deadlines.  Mexico's proposal was still on the table, and if it were accepted, Mexico would comply
with it.  However, his delegation could not accept that informal consultations take place under the
aegis of the General Council or the DSB, or that there be any mandate to either of these bodies that
ran counter to the deadline of 31 July 1999.  It was a fact that the latter deadline had expired.  Mexicoproposed that the General Council recommend to the Third Ministerial Conference that the existing
DSU be continued.
The representative of Korea said that like other delegations, Korea supported the continuation
of work in the DSU review process on a de facto ba sis with a view to achieving a tangible outcome
before the Third Ministerial Conference.  More than a year had been spent on that review and
significant progress had recently been made.  That progress had been possible because all Members
shared the sense of urgency to resolve priority issues such as the relationship between Articles 21 and
22.  Should Members fail to translate that into an agreed text, considerable time and resources would
have been wasted.  Korea had actively participated in this process and would continue to participate inthe informal consultations.  However, such work should not be continued indefinitely, and there had
to be a clear and workable deadline so that Members could then concentrate on preparations for the
Third Ministerial Conference.WT/GC/M/48
Page 31
The representative of Costa Rica said that his delegation supported the continuation of the
work carried out in good faith by all delegations.  More was at stake than merely procedural
questions, given the importance of the dispute settlement system.  Cost Rica had participated
intensively in the review process with a view to improving the DSU.  While there was still a
possibility of reaching an agreement in the review, discussions should continue, and his delegationwas flexible on the modalities for this.
The representative of Malaysia, speaking also on behalf of the Philippines, said that these
countries fully supported Mexico's statement and urged the Chairman to propose that the General
Council recommend that in light of the fact that  there was no agreement to modify the DSU, the
existing DSU should be continued.
The representative of Bulgaria agreed that there was much at stake in the continuation of the
process and would be flexible on the form of continuing the review.
The Chairman said that the discussion on this matter had been productive.  He proposed that
the General Council take note of the statement by the DSB Chairman and the statements by
delegations, and that the future Chairman of the DSB consult with Members on how to proceed with
this matter to enable the General Council to revert to it at its next meeting.
The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation did not see the rationale of the
Chairman's proposal that the future DSB Chairman undertake consultations, since the legal basis of
the review, and thus the review itself, had ende d.  Any Member so wishing could consult on this
matter, but those consultations would have no legal basis.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation needed more information about what the
DSB Chairman would be consulting about.  There was no doubt that the time-frame allowed for the
DSU review had ended.  Mexico could not agree to the General Council's authorizing the DSB
Chairman to hold consultations in that regard.  Th at individual, as Chairman of the DSB, could hold
consultations on any matter that fell within the terms of his mandate.  Mexico would prefer to leave
this matter up to the new DSB Chairman in 2000.
The Chairman said that he was not sure whether at the present meeting a definite decision
could be taken on the continuation, or not, of the review.  He was therefore suggesting that the
Chairman of the DSB consult on the decision the General Council should take on this matter.  He
asked Members to give the new DSB Chairman a chance to see how to do this.
The representative of Mexico said that from the legal standpoint, Members had never taken
up a change in the decision by the General Council that the period for the review would expire on
31 July 1999.  From the legal point of view, there was no basis to say that Members were considering
an extension of the review.  Mexico could not agree to reopening discussion of a date that had already
been agreed by the General Council.  The next Chairman of the DSB would no doubt read the minutes
of the present meeting and would therefore know how to proceed in his capacity as Chairman.
The representative of Malaysia said that there was no legal basis for, or consensus decision
on, any extension of the DSU review.  It was out of the question that the new DSB Chairman would
recommend to the General Council how to proceed.  The review had ended on 31 July and no
delegation had contested that fact.  Malaysia urged the General Council to recommend that the present
DSU continue.
The representative of the United States said it was clear that there was no consensus on this
matter at the present meeting, nor was there any requirement that the General Council take anyWT/GC/M/48
Page 32
decisions on this matter at the present time.  Informal consultations had been very productive, and she
suggested that the new DSB Chairman take up this matter as soon as possible after he took office.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this item at its next
meeting.
8. Attendance of observers at the 1999 Ministerial Conference
(a) Governments (WT/L/311, 315 and 316)
The Chairman recalled that according to paragraph 1 of Annex 2 to the Rules of Procedure for
meetings of WTO bodies, governments seeking observer status in the Ministerial Conference shall
address a communication to that body indicating their reasons for seeking such status, and suchrequests shall be examined on a case-by-case basis.  He drew attention to the communications in
documents WT/L/311, 315 and 316 from the Governments of Sao Tomé and Principe, Equatorial
Guinea and San Marino respectively, requesting observer status at the Third Ministerial Conference.
He proposed that the General Council accept the three requests and invite the Governments of
Sao Tomé and Principe, Equatorial Guinea and San Marino to attend as observers the Third
Ministerial Conference.
The General Council so agreed.
(b) International intergovernmental organizations
The Chairman recalled that at its meeting on 15 June 1999 the General Council agreed that
consultations would be held on requests for observer status to the Third Ministerial Conference from
international intergovernmental organizations that we re not observers to the WTO.  Since the meeting
of the General Council on 15 July 1999, the Secretariat had received requests for observer status tothe 1999 Ministerial Conference from the following four organizations:  the League of Arab States,
the World Tourism Organization, the Latin American Organization for Fisheries Development, and
the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture.  The League of Arab States had also
submitted requests for observer status in the General Council, the Councils for Trade in Goods and for
Trade in Services, and the Committees on Trade and Development, on Regional Trade Agreements
and on Trade and Environment.  The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture had
pending requests for observer status in the Committees on Agriculture and on Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures.  Members wishing to consult the communications sent to the Secretariat by
these organizations were invited to contact the External Relations Division.  He proposed that unless
any objection was received by the Secretariat from any Member by 21 October 1999, these
organizations be granted observer status to the 1999 Ministerial Conference.
The General Council took note of the statement and so agreed
.4
9. Promotion of the institutional image of the WTO
Mr. Suzuki (Japan), speaking under "Other Business", reported on the consultations on this
issue which he had been asked to conduct on behalf of the Chairman of the General Council.  At thefirst of such consultations, on 21 September, more than 20 delegations had participated in an
exchange of views.  Three main points had aris en in the consultations:  (1) the WTO was not a
                                                     
4 There was no consensus on the request from the League of Arab States.WT/GC/M/48
Page 33
supranational organization, and Members had the prime responsibility for improving the
understanding of the WTO in their respective countries;  (2) governments should use the public
information materials prepared by the Secretariat for their public relations and information activities;
and (3) the exchange of national experiences relating to enhancing the understanding of the WTO was
a valuable exercise, and further consultations woul d be held after the Third Ministerial Conference
The General Council took note of the statement.
10. Frequency and scheduling of WTO meetings
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", recalled that at the General Council meeting
on 15 July 1999 he had indicated his intention to conduct consultations with interested delegations on
this matter at the earliest opportunity, based on the submission from Mexico on behalf of the Informal
Group of Developing Countries, and to report back to the General Council.  Unfortunately, due to the
pressures of work on preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference, he had as yet not been able to
convene these consultations.  It was his intention to do so at the earliest possible date.
The General Council took note of this information.
11. Observer status for internationa l intergovernmental organizations
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", informed the General Council that
consultations among interested delegations concerning the requests for observer status for
international intergovernmental organizations in the General Council had continued but had not as yet
produced any agreement.  He intended to conduct further consultations with interested delegations at
the earliest possible opportunity, and would keep the General Council informed of any developments
on this matter.
The General Council took note of this information.
12. Informal meeting of the General Council on coherence issues
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", sa id that an informal meeting of the General
Council would be convened on 28 October 1999 to di scuss coherence issues.  The Director-General
wished to have this opportunity to discuss with delegations a number of issues he considered pertinent
to the Third Ministerial Conference and to the WT O's future programme of work with the IMF and
the World Bank.  A draft agenda would be circulated shortly.
The General Council took note of this information.
13. Chairmanship of the Dispute Settlement Body
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", noted that since the departure of Mr. Akao
(Japan), the Dispute Settlement Body had been without a Chairperson.  After extensive consultations
on the appointment of a new Chairperson, he was pleased to inform Members that Mr. Káre Bryn
(Norway) had agreed to replace Mr. Akao for the remainder of the latter's term.
The General Council took note of this information.WT/GC/M/48
Page 34
14. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Busine ss", informed the General Council that
Mr. Peter Jenkins (United Kingdom) had agreed to chair the Working Party on the accession of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The General Council took note of this information.
15. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of the Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Busine ss", informed the General Council that
Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway) had agreed to chair the Working Party on the accession of the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The General Council took note of this information.
__________