RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/WPDR/M/17
1 October 2002
(02-5238)
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 16 JULY 2002
Note by the Secretariat1
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held its seventeenth meeting on 16 July
under the chairpersonship of Mr. Sérgio Santos from Brazil.  The agenda for the meeting is contained
in Airgram WTO/AIR/1861.  Discussion during the meeting focused primarily on the examination ofregulatory measures, based on a new Chairperson’s Note and a revised paper from the Secretariat.
2. Before moving to the agenda items, the Chairperson reminded Members that the OECD
would give a brief presentation, on a non-attributable basis, regarding the meeting of services experts
that was held in Paris last March.   The Working Party had invited the OECD to make the presentation
at the previous meeting, but due to time pressures Members had agreed to delay the presentation untilthe current meeting.   He also stated that, as usual, a strikeout version of the Summary  of Discussions
on the Checklist of Issues for WPDR  was available at the back of the room for everyone’s reference.
The Summary , circulated earlier as JOB(02)/3/Rev.1, dated 12 April 2002, was unchanged from the
previous WPDR meeting.
A. 
DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE VI:4
1. Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Disciplines
3. The Chairperson noted that the first item on the agenda was the Development of Regulatory
Disciplines under GATS Article VI:4 , with the first sub-item being the Discussion of Concepts
Relating to the Development of Disciplines .  Since the previous Working Party meeting, he had
written a new Chairperson’s Note, circulated as JOB(02)/81, dated 12 July 2002.
4. The Chairperson also noted that, since the last meeting, the Secretariat had circulated a new
version of the Examples  paper ( Examples of Measures to be Addressed by Disciplines under GATS
Article VI:4 , JOB(02)/20/Rev.1, also dated 12 July 2002), and he asked the Secretariat to introduce
the revised paper.  A representative of the Secretariat stated that the procedure used to update the
Examples  paper was the same as that used for previous versions, i.e. the Secretariat made a
preliminary determination of how to allocate the measures concerned.  The Secretariat had tried to be
as flexible as possible, giving the “benefit of the doubt” in regard to whether certain measures shouldbe listed under Article VI:4.  To make it easier to follow the changes, the most recent additions were
indicated in bold.
5. The Chairperson then opened the floor for exam ination of the specific regulatory examples
contained in the revised Examples  paper.  He suggested that discussion take place in informal mode,
stating that Members should indicate if they wished their interventions to be recorded in the Minutes.
Otherwise, the examination would be on an inform al basis followed by a summary of discussions
from the Chairperson.  He also noted that the discussions would be reflected in the next update of the
Summary .  Members agreed to begin discussions in informal mode.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.S/WPDR/M/17
Page 2
6. The Chairperson proposed that Members begin with initial discussions of the measures listed
in Annex I of the revised Examples  paper, starting with the first sub-category, i.e. Transparency.  He
noted that the methodology for the discussions, as agreed by Members at the previous meeting, was
reflected in paras 5-7 of his Chairperson’s Note.  He reiterated that the exercise was not intended to
make a final determination of the categorization of measures, but simply to help clarify whichmeasures could serve as the basis for discussions.
7. The representative of Hong Kong, China, after asking that his comments be recorded in the
Minutes, stated for the sake of clarity that the regulatory measures contributed by his delegation,
which the Secretariat had included in the Examples  paper update, were measures which his delegation
considered as needing to be addressed by Article VI:4.  The measures were originally identified by
Members in their negotiating proposals submitted to the CTS Special Session, and his delegation had
taken the liberty to compile from that factual information its contributions of regulatory measuresrelevant to the work of the WPDR.  As indicated in the Chairperson’s Note, the examination of the
Examples  paper did not purport to make a determination of a final list of Article VI:4-type measures,
and the representative presumed that it would remain  open to delegations to put forward any further
examples of regulatory measures that they might identify, from any source they considered
appropriate.  In this regard, he reiterated his delegation’s call to other Members, especially developingMembers, to contribute further examples of regulatory measures they encountered to enrich the
discussions in the Working Party.  The representative observed that some of the measures might lack
specific details to enable a more precise assessment according to the Chairperson’s note, and noted it
would be helpful if the Members who faced such regulatory issues could supply more details.
8. The Chairperson summarized the discussions, stating that Members indeed had a very useful
first exchange of views on the basis of the examples of regulatory measures contained in the
Secretariat paper.  He noted that the comments concentrated on transparency-related measures in
general.  A number of Members expressed the view that it would be useful to examine the sufficiency
of GATS Article III obligations.  Some Members, however, cautioned against creating any further
obligations, considering the administrative burden this could create for developing countries.Regarding residency requirements, some Members said these were Article XVII measures;  others,
however, said Members needed to further specify, and to look at the details of the implementation of
such requirements.  Overall, it was a very useful discussion, the Chairperson stated, and he hoped the
Working Party would continue to develop the examination of regulatory measures.
9. Before moving to the OECD presentation, the Chairperson asked whether any Member
wished to make further comments on any of the issues covered under the Summary  of Discussions on
the Checklist of Issues for WPDR  (i.e. General Issues, Transparency, Equivalence and International
Standards), or under the agenda sub-item as a wh ole.  He noted that Members had commented on
some issues that were already in the Summary , for example, administrative burden.
10. As Members had no further comments, the Chairperson then turned to Julia Nielson of the
OECD for her presentation, which was given on a non- attributed basis.  Following the presentation,
Members agreed to ask the OECD to accept to have the presentation circulated as a room document,
and the OECD agreed to the request.
11. The Chairperson noted that an issue still pending from the June meeting, as contained in paras
2 and 3 of his Chairperson’s Note, was the organization of work, specifically the March 2003
indicative benchmark.  There was a typo in para 2, he noted, stating that “basis” should be inserted
after the word “notional”.  The Chairperson said he felt it was difficult to organize the work without a
timeframe, and requested those Members which had difficulties with the March 2003 date to make
suggestions.  Members agreed to agai n hold discussions in informal mode.
12. The Chairperson concluded the informal discussions by stating that, as with the June WPDR
meeting, a number of delegations expressed support for an indicative, best-endeavours benchmark.S/WPDR/M/17
Page 3
Some delegations, however, still had difficulties.  There was no consensus and, therefore, the
Working Party would resume discussions at the next meeting.  He requested those Members with
difficulties to reflect further, and to come back  to the next meeting with alternative solutions.
2. Development of Disciplines for Professional Services
13. The Chairperson then turned to the next sub-item on the agenda, i.e. the Development of
Disciplines for Professional Services .  He noted that, since the last meeting, the Secretariat had
circulated his informal Note on  Members’ Domestic Consultations with Professional Services
Associations , as JOB(02)/80, dated 12 July 2002.
14. The Chairperson said his Note attempted to provide some background on the Accountancy
Disciplines  (Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector  (S/L/64, dated
17 December 1998), as well as information on the GATS Article VI:4 mandate, and a description of
the main elements of the Accountancy Disciplines .  Part V of his Note concerned a best endeavours
deadline for the conclusion of domestic consultations.  He wished to make clear that any Member
could present results of their domestic consultations at any time.  The text of his Note was only a tool
to assist Members in their domestic consultations, he stated, and Members could change it as they saw
appropriate.
15. The Chairperson then suggested that the Working Party begin an initial discussion of the
General Comments section of the Synthesis  paper ( Synthesis of Results to Date of the Domestic
Consultations in Professional Services (Fifth Draft) , JOB(01)/162 dated 27 November 2001).  As
emphasized in the previous meeting, this discussion could be useful to help guide the consultations of
those Members that have not yet reported, despite the well-known limitations of the Synthesis  paper.
This initial discussion could be followed by comments on procedures for the consultations withinternational professional organizations, he stated, as well as the discussion of any issues raised by
Members regarding the Accountancy Disciplines  and the Guidelines for Mutual Recognition
Agreements or Arrangements  in the Accountancy Sector  (S/L/38 dated 28 May 1997).
16. Regarding the establishment of a best-endeavours benchmark of 30 November 2002 for the
conclusion of domestic consultations, as reflected in para 10 of his Note, the Chairperson emphasized
that it would in no way prevent Members from contribu ting inputs after that date.  The purpose of the
benchmark was to set a date after which the Secretariat could begin consultations with international
professional services organizations.  The Chairperson recalled that, at the last meeting, some
delegations had expressed concern over the benchmark and, therefore, he welcomed any alternativesuggestions.  He also noted that some Members had pointed out that work directly related to the
Working Party’s efforts was already being undertaken by a number of international professional
services organizations, and asked that Members take this aspect into account.
17. Members agreed to the Chairperson’s
 suggestion to hold the discussions in informal mode.
18. The Chairperson summarized the informal discussions on professional services, by noting that
some Members had expressed an interest in defining the procedures for the Secretariat consultations
with international professional associations, and th at useful suggestions were made. These suggestions
would be further discussed at the next meeting.  In addition, the Secretariat would prepare a draftletter for the consultations for examination by Members in advance of the next meeting.
19. On his Chairman’s Note regarding Members’ domestic consultations, it was agreed to add the
Decision  of the Council for Trade in Services adopting the accountancy disciplines (S/L/63, dated
15 December 1998), as well as the Decision creating the WPDR  (WTO document S/L/70, 28 April,
1999).  On the Synthesis  discussions, the Chairperson noted that comments were made by one
delegation on the general part of the paper.   He reiterated that his intention in opening the floor wasS/WPDR/M/17
Page 4
to give an opportunity to those Members which had contributed reports to make comments which
might be useful for those Members which had not yet concluded their domestic consultations.
B. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
20. The Chairperson noted that the next item on the agenda was the date for the next meeting.  In
accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of subsidiary bodies close to meetings of the
Council, he suggested that the next meeting be held during the week just before the next CTS and
Special Session meetings, i.e. the week beginning 21 October.  Members approved the Chairperson’s
suggestion.
C. OTHER BUSINESS
21. Turning to Other Business , The Chairperson noted that the issue of the derestriction of
informal WPDR documents had been raised in the two previous meetings, and observed there had
been no consensus.  At the last meeting he had mentioned the 16 May 2002 General Council decisionon derestriction (WT/L/452) emphasi zing, however, that it did not apply to informal documents.  He
had concluded by noting that the reason for derestriction was to contribute to increasing public
knowledge of the work of the WPDR.   He then asked whether any Members wish to make any
further comments.
22. As no additional comments were made, the Chairperson concluded by stating that Members
could take up the issue at a future meeting.
23. The representative of Australia reminded Members of the architect’s symposium, sponsored
by the Union Internationale des Architectes (UIA), to be held on 18 July to introduce their Accord on
Recommended International Standards of Professionalism in Architectural Practice.  The
representative noted that the symposium was very relevant to the work of the WPDR.
24. The Chairperson noted that a similar event, organized by the International Bar Association
(IBA) and focusing on legal services, would be held on 19 July.
__________