RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/27
22 September 1998
(98-3645)
General Council
2, 14 April and 17 May 1998
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 2, 14 April and 17 May 1998
Chairman:  Mr. J. Weekes (Canada)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Preparations for the 1998 Ministerial Conference and the
commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the multilateral trading system .................1
(a) Organizatio nal matt ers...................................................................................................... ......1
(i) Director-General's report................................................................................................... ....1
(ii) Other organiza tional matters............................................................................................... ...8
(b) Observer status for international intergovernmental organizations at the Ministerial
Conference..................................................................................................................... .......13
(c) Participation of least- developed c ountries ............................................................................14
(d) Attendance of non-govern mental organi zations ...................................................................14
2. Venue of the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference..............................................15
3. Electronic commerce .......................................................................................................... 17
1. Preparations for the 1998 Ministerial Conference and the commemoration of the 50th
Anniversary of the multilateral trading system
(a) Organizational matters
(i) Director-General's report
At the General Council meeting on 2 April, the Director-General said that on 1 April in
consultation with the Chairman, he had held a first open-ended informal Heads-of-Delegation (HOD)
meeting concerning the substantive aspects of the preparations for the Ministerial Conference, and inparticular the preparation of a text to be adopted by Ministers at the Conference.  To this effect, the
text of this statement had been circulated to delegations as well as an informal paper, dated
1 April 1998, containing some talking points aimed at helping a focused discussion.  The discussion at
the HOD meeting had been positive which had showed a high degree of convergence on several
points.  There had been wide acceptance that the text of the document for Ministers should be short.This text would contain two basic sections:  (i) a political message; and (ii) a set of directives to the
General Council establishing a process for the preparations of the Third Session of the Ministerial
Conference.  A number of delegations had stressed the need to confine any message to WTO issues.
A number of subjects had also been suggested for inclusion as possible elements in a message:  (i) theWT/GC/M/27
Page 2
need to send a strong signal to public opinion on the advantages and benefits of the multilateral
trading system at its 50-year celebration;  (ii) the primacy of the multilateral trading system and its
role in sustaining economic growth in the world;  (iii) the need to address the particular problems of
developing countries and especially to follow up on the High-Level Meeting on Least-Developed
Countries (LDCs);  (iv) the importance of a WTO commitment to trade liberalization in the light of
recent developments in Asia;  and (v) the importance of coherence in economic policy-making.
With regard to the process for the preparations of the Third Session of the Ministerial
Conference there had been general support for the point that Ministers should provide clear and
unambiguous directives to the General Council so that the appropriate work could proceed within a
precise framework and be concluded in time.  A suggestion had been made that the third Ministerial
Conference take place in the year 2000.  Others had stressed the need for the Conference to be held in1999 to prepare for negotiations in the year 2000.  Many delegations had emphasized the importance
of avoiding contentious language in the preparation of the document which would be submitted to the
Ministers and which had to be approved by consensus.
A number of important remarks had also been made concerning certain substantive aspects of
work.  There had been broad acceptance that references to issues concerning implementation and
future activities should be made in a balanced way.  Some delegations had stressed the particular
importance they attached to the issue of implementation.  In this area, two types of problems had to be
underlined: the appearance of unanticipated problems in the implementation of obligations and the
non-realization of expected benefits.  These delegations had proposed that a process be established,which could involve the General Council to consider these problems between the Second and Third
Sessions of the Ministerial Conference in order to identify appropriate solutions.  An evaluation of
how the agreements were being implemented and their objectives achieved had also been suggested.
Other delegations had stated that such problems were already being examined within the existing
institutional machinery of the WTO.
Some delegations had understood that future activities covered only the issues contained in
the built-in agenda.  Others had also referred to the decision taken at the Singapore Ministerial
Conference and still other delegations had believed that the document should allow for additions to be
made to the negotiating agenda on the basis of consensus.  Despite these differences of views, there
had been broad acceptance that the language to be used in the text should not be specific and should
not prejudge or exclude elements that might go in the ministerial decisions during the Third Session.It had been agreed that the document should strike a balance in the interests of all Members.  He
hoped that all Members supported the need of finding a solution to the problems of the staff prior to or
at the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of the United States recalled that delegations had devoted a great amount
of time to discuss the issue of implementation.  She had also had the opportunity to further discuss
this with several delegations after the HOD meeting and was now aware of their positions.  Since
much work on implementation had been done in the WTO she wished to know what exactly was
being done within the framework of the WTO.
The representative of Egypt thanked the Director-General for the report which was short but
comprehensive since it contained almost all points discussed at the HOD meeting.  However, his
delegation was concerned about the term "others" referred to in the penultimate paragraph on page 1
of the report.  He said that at the HOD meeting no decision had been taken on the date of the Third
Session since the majority of delegations had not been in a position to do so.  If the report was to becirculated as an official WTO document, he wished that the term "others" be replaced by "some"
because the majority of delegations had not been in a position to express their views and were
currently examining this issue.WT/GC/M/27
Page 3
The representative of Uganda thanked the Director-General for the report which had
appropriately reflected the discussion at the HOD meeting.  At that meeting most delegations, in
particular from Sub-Saharan African countries, had not presented their views.  As previously stated by
his delegation, African countries had not been in a position to present their views due to the fact that a
meeting of their Ministers to discuss, inter alia,  the preparations for the Ministerial Conference would
only be held next week.  They would be in a position to do so after that meeting.
The representative of Pakistan thanked the Director-General for the report.  At the present
meeting he wished to underline the following points.  First, he believed that a consensus on a set of
directives to the General Council would not be limited to the preparations for the Third Session but
would entail a broader effort aimed at ensuring the strengthening of the multilateral trading system
through implementation and the examination of future work.
Second, he considered the subjects suggested for inclusion as possible elements in a message
to be illustrative points.  He drew attention to one such a subject, namely the need to address the
particular problems of developing countries and especially to follow up on the High-Level Meeting on
LDCs.  He believed that it was necessary to underline two issues in this area:  (i) the interest ofdeveloping countries in ensuring the reciprocity of benefits of the multilateral trading system and the
balance of interests as well as their problems in this area;  and (ii) the problems of LDCs which have
been addressed in Ministerial meetings.  He considered that it was necessary to make this distinction.
Third, he drew attention to the second paragraph on page 2 of the report which read as
follows: "other delegations were of the view that such problems were already being examined within
the existing institutional machinery of the WTO".  He believed that there was an omission before this
sentence because a proposal had been made to establish a special mechanism for the purpose of the
review of implementation or to have the General Council act as a special mechanism.  He considered
that the proposal that the text of the decision should not be too specific only related to specific sectorsto be addressed and did not mean that the language in the text should be deliberately unclear with
regard to the issues that required specific language.  There was no need to be specific on sectoral
issues but the language in the text would have to be specific.  He considered that the phrase: "and
should not prejudge what may go into the Ministerial Decision" would have been sufficient and it was
not necessary to be explicit and state:  "or exclude elements".  While he had no objections to this
language he hoped that this would not be understood as an invitation for new proposals and issues to
be raised in the context of future work at a later stage.
The Director-General said that his intention was to circulate a text which was not an official
record of the HOD meeting.  As a result of insufficient time, the language of the text had not been
adjusted as in an official document.  He noted the statements made by delegations which had clarified
certain points.  However, not every word in this text should be considered to be final. With regard tothe US question, he said that it would be useful to prepare a paper outlining the provisions that had
been implemented in accordance with the built-in ag enda, the provisions that were currently being
implemented as well as the provisions that still had to be implemented.
The representative of Tanzania said that the report had truly reflected the discussion at the
HOD meeting.  He reiterated that African countries awaited the results of a meeting to be held next
week in Harare in order to be in a  position to make constructive contributions.  In the meantime, his
delegation supported the proposals and wished to make some comments.  With regard to the proposal
that the text would contain two sections, he believed that on the basis of points 2 and  6 outlined in the
talking points for the Director-General, which was circulated in the room, the best approach would beto have three sections in the text.  The first section would be a political message the content of which
he supported.  The second section would be an evaluation of implementation and the future
programme of work.  The third section would be the preparations for the Third Session.  He said that
the section on an evaluation of the implementation and the future programme of work should beWT/GC/M/27
Page 4
included before the section concerning a process for the preparations of the next Ministerial
Conference.  This would suggest that the process derived from the second section.
He noted with satisfaction that the need to emphasize the position of LDCs had been
recognized but  rather than referring to LDCs in a political message such references should be made in
the section on implementation of the WTO Agreement and future work.  He said that the Chairman
had not mentioned that he would circulate proposed elements.  Therefore, he wished to know whether
the elements referred to by the Chairman were c ontained in the talking points for the Director-General
or whether new elements would be circulated to delegations.
The Chairman said that the point raised by Tanzania would be considered under the next
agenda item.  On 31 March he had sent a revised set of points by fax after the informal meeting
referred to by Tanzania.  He would revert to the revised proposals in the course of the meeting.  He
said that the Director-General had intended to make a report which did not constitute the first draft of
the output for the Ministerial Conference.  This report would be reflected in the records of the present
meeting but it would not become an official document.
The representative of Mauritius said that, like Tanzania and Uganda, his delegation also
awaited the outcome of the meeting to be held in Harare and for this reason had not taken the floor at
the HOD meeting.  Having heard the clarification by the Chairman, he only wished to state that the
report had captured the essence of the discussion.  He considered that this report was not a final
document and that new elements could still be added.
The delegation of India thanked the Director-General for the report.  He appreciated the
clarification by the Director-General that the text had been prepared within a short period of time and
therefore not all nuances had been covered.  It was his understanding that this text was not a final
draft and that comments made at the present meeting would facilitate the preparation of the final text.He therefore wished to make a few points.  First, he shared the majority of points raised by Pakistan.
Second, he wished to reiterate the point that he had attempted to include in this text.  He was aware
that not all delegations had agreed to this point, namely that the same process should examine both
future activities and implementation.  This issue required further consideration.  Third, one point
raised at the HOD meeting concerned the need to send a message to public opinion that the WTO
recognized the differences in the nature of the problems of countries with different levels of
development and was in a position to reconcile their interests.  He considered that this issue requiredfurther consultations.  He added that he had not fully understood the implications of the US question
concerning implementation and the Director-General's reply to this question.  He hoped that he would
be able to raise this point  in further consultations.
The representative of Japan thanked the Director-General for the report which reflected the
points raised by delegations.  However, like other delegations, Japan considered that paragraph 2 on
page 2 of the report on implementation had not fully reflected the positions expressed at the HOD
meeting.  It was his delegation's understanding that a new text for negotiations would be prepared by
the Director-General and that the report made at the present meeting would not prejudge his country's
position on this matter.
The representative of Jamaica thanked the Director-General for the report which adequately
reflected the points raised at the HOD meeting.  He noted that several delegations had made
comments at the present meeting to enable the Director-General to benefit from a different
perspective.  A political message of the text should be both forward looking and take into account ofthe past.  One should looked forward to the architecture of the international trading system similar to
that of the international monetary system.  In this respect, he hoped that any discussion would
consider the issue of institutional strengthening of the system in order to ensure that the benefits of theWT/GC/M/27
Page 5
open multilateral and transparent multilateral trading system and its decision-making process by
consensus should not move backward but forward.
There was a need to be clear with regard to the preparatory process of the Third Session.  The
WTO was a permanent negotiating forum and in the course of such preparations new issues could bebrought for negotiations.  He recalled that Pakistan had considered that there was general support for
the point that Ministers should provide clear and unambiguous directives to the General Council so
that the appropriate work could proceed within the precise framework and be concluded in time.  He
recognized that Pakistan sought a more profound approach in this area.  However, Jamaica was
concerned that this approach would imply the inclusion of substantive issues.  Provided that his
understanding of the point raised by Pakistan was correct, he considered that it was premature to
anticipate that this Ministerial Conference would deal with subjects scheduled for negotiations withinthe agreed time-limits.  In the meantime, delegations  could decide whether it was appropriate to start
negotiations.
The other point related to a special mechanism to be established in the WTO or the General
Council to act as a special mechanism.  This point raised by Pakistan had been interpreted differentlyby Jamaica.  If the WTO had a special mechanism this would mean that another body would have to
be established to discuss the process.  He believed that important matters should be discussed in the
General Council.  This implied that more meetings  would have to be held which would be organized
in a particular way.
He recalled that at the HOD meeting it had been indicated that a high-level initiative on trade
and the environment should be launched.  He wished to have more details on this issue and to know
whether it would be possible to have the Director-General's views as to whether further consultations
would be held on his text.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation supported the Director-General's report.
At the present meeting he wished to make two commen ts.  First, he sought clarification with regard to
the point made by Pakistan contained the last paragraph on page 2 of the report.  He believed that the
need not to be specific related to sectors or issues and that this was only a semantic problem.  Second,
he wished to state that it was his delegation's understanding that the point regarding the need not to
prejudge the final results of work between the two Sessions was in terms of both the content and the
procedure.  He underlined that it was important to have first a substantive outcome agreed byconsensus and then to discuss the procedure to give value to this exercise which would be agreed by
Ministers at the Third Session.
The representative of South Africa thanked the Director-General for the report which  had
indicated that some progress had been made towards a consensus on how the Ministerial Conference
would be organized.  At the present meeting he wished to raise  two points.  First, he supported the
point made by some African countries concerning a high-level meeting of their Ministers.  He hoped
that they would still have the opportunity to presen t the outcome of the meeting in the near future.
His delegation supported the view expressed by Tanzania concerning the structure of the text with
regard to the evaluation of implementation.  He proposed that a section on the implementation of theTRIPS Agreement could also be incorporated.  This would help to strike a balance in the interest of all
Members.  He noted that references had been made to the process after the Ministerial Conference and
emphasis had been placed on future activities.  Therefore, specific references to implementation in the
text would help to achieve a balanced text.  He hoped that his country would shortly be in a position
to make its views known.
The representative of Morocco said that in order to make progress  it was necessary to be
more specific with regard to the process between the Second and the Third Session.  The Director-
General had also stated that there was a need for a precise framework.  In his view the WTOWT/GC/M/27
Page 6
constituted a framework and therefore he could not think of any other framework.  With regard to a
third section of the text, he believed that this would mean that the existing machinery would be put
aside and a new one would have to be created for the purpose of negotiations.  He believed that this
was not appropriate.  In order to strike a balance references should be made to new subjects and to
implementation.  It was necessary to clarify what was meant by the process and how such processcould be integrated within the existing legal framework.  He sought clarification with regard to this
matter since it was not sufficient to inform Ministers that some process had been established
concerning negotiations between the Second and the Third Session.
The delegation of Australia said that in the view of the emerging consensus on the need for
balance between implementation and future activities he wished to assure the Director-General that
Australia did not see any implications that his report contained nine lines on implementation and onlyfour lines on future activities.  However, it was pleased that a higher proportion of the words in the
paragraph on future activities was in bold than in the paragraph on implementation.
The Chairman considered that the discussion on the Director-General's report had been useful.
He said that at a later stage it would formally be agreed that the first draft of the text for the
Ministerial Conference would be based on the Director-General's consultations and on the discussion
at the present meeting.  Therefore the statements made at the present meeting would be useful.  He
proposed that the Council take note of the Director-General's report and of the statements made.
The General Council so agreed.
The meeting was then adjourned.Upon resumption of the General Council meeting on 17 May, the Director-General said that
he wished to report on the activities that had taken place in the past 36 hours.  He considered that
there had been a good exchange of information and wished to introduce the draft Ministerial text
which had resulted from the consultations.  He hoped that delegations would support this text.  The
task had been facilitated as a result of the guidelines provided at the previous meetings.  He recalled
that in accordance with these guidelines the text should contain two sections.  The first section would
constitute a political message and the second section would contain an operative part.  It should be
short, it should have the minimum of specificity, it should not contain contentious language, it should
not prejudge the outcome of the process and it should be clear.  At the end of the consultations therehad been a general sentiment that this text  complied with the suggested guidelines.
The main result of the adoption of the Ministerial text would be to set up a process after the
Second Session to prepare for the Third Session while also ensuring a full and faithful implementation
of the existing WTO Agreements and decisions.  In his view this was the right way to proceedbecause there was a need to consolidate and strengthen the system. Delegations had made
considerable efforts and, at the same time, had fully recognized the positions of their trading partners.
They had shown great understanding and had defended their points of view embodied in the text.
They had agreed to a compromise on issues on which views had been substantially different.
Although a few delegations had not formally given up their position on pending amendments, he haddetected an overwhelming desire that the text should not be subjected to any further changes.  One
pending issue relating to sustainable development and sustained economic growth had already been
resolved under the guidance of the Chairman.  This text constituted a draft of the Ministerial
document but it was not yet decided whether it should be called " declaration".
The Chairman thanked the Director-General for his report and for the contribution made by
delegations in preparing this text.  He proposed that the General Council take note of the Director-
General's report and agree that the draft text in document WT/GC/W/87/Rev.2 be submitted to
Ministers for their consideration and adoption.WT/GC/M/27
Page 7
The General Council so agreed.
The representative of Jamaica wished to present the Joint Communiqué of the Heads of State
and Government of the Group of Fifteen who had met in Cairo in the past week.  At that meeting, the
participants had recognized the crucial role of GATT and the WTO in encouraging open trade regimesand dismantling tariffs and non-tariff barriers in the trade of goods and services.  They had expressed
the view that the multilateral trading system had faced important challenges, including the effective
integration and participation of all developing countries, including least-developed countries, in such
a way as to maximize the development dividend and potential benefits to be gained from the system.
They had also recognized that it was important to ensure that short-term capital flows were supportive
of expanding trade, employment and developmen t.  They had called on their developed-country
partners to resist calls for protectionism and had reiterated the rejection of the use of trade measures orinstruments, including anti-dumping and countervailing duty provisions, standards and regulations for
protectionist purposes.  They had also believed that the full and effective implementation of the WTO
Agreement should be the priority and therefore particular attention should be given to the
implementation of special and differential provisio ns contained in the WTO Agreement.  They had
committed themselves to the achievement of universa lity in the multilateral trading system and had
considered that the terms of accession of countries including developing countries should be in
accordance with the WTO rules.
He recalled that at the Singapore Ministerial Conference two declarations had been adopted:
the Ministerial Declaration which covered a range of subjects and the Declaration on InformationTechnology Agreement.  This Agreement which had been subsequently implemented had not been
introduced in the WTO in the way that would ensure full transparency.  As a consequence, a number
of developing countries, including Jamaica considered that their trade interests had been affected by
virtue of diminished negotiating rights which, as principal suppliers, had acquired in the Tokyo
Round.  At present, another new subject, namely electronic commerce had been proposed to besubmitted to Ministers for consideration.  Jamaica was satisfied with this approach.  His delegation
believed that should Ministers so decided this subject could be included under paragraph 9(d) of the
Ministerial Declaration.  Jamaica hoped that what had happened in the case of the Information
Technology Agreement would not take place this time and that all would participate in the
negotiations in a manner that would be open, transparent and consistent with the WTO Agreement.
The representative of Cuba thanked the Director-General for his work on a draft Ministerial
text which was balanced.  He expressed his country's support for the Joint Communiqué and the
proposal to include the subject of electronic commerce under the matters referred to in paragraph 9 (d)
of the Ministerial Declaration.  He recalled that his country attached importance that this declaration
contained explicit references to unilateral measures affecting international trade.  These measures
which had negative impacts on countries were contrary to the spirit and the letter of the WTOAgreement.  It was therefore necessary that each Ministerial Conference examine these measures.  He
regretted that despite Cuba's insistence such references were not contained in the draft text.  He
reiterated Cuba's conviction that this matter should be examined by relevant WTO bodies.
The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation had some concerns with regard
to paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration but would not stand in the way of the consensus.
However he wished to explain why his country suppo rted the Ministerial Declaration, in particular its
paragraph 9 in relation to paragraphs 10 and 11.  The Philippines supported this text on the
understanding that:  (i) the negotiations mandated in Marrakesh would not in any manner be affected
in the event that the Ministers would be unable to agree on the modalities of these negotiations; and(ii) to the extent that paragraph 11 stated that the work programme should reflect an overall balance,
the Philippines considered that this meant that the negotiations mandated in Marrakesh were part for
the existing balance.  In other words, their legal validity did not depend on any agreement on any
future issues.WT/GC/M/27
Page 8
The General Council took note of the statements.
The Chairman said that the Philippines had called this text a Ministerial declaration.  He
therefore proposed that the title of this text should  read "Draft Ministerial Declaration".  Although no
consultations had been held on this issue this was a logical step in the process.  He then proposed that
the General Council change the title of the draft text in document WT/GC/W/87/Rev. 2 to read "Draft
Ministerial Declaration".
The General Council so agreed.
(ii) Other organizational matters
At the General Council meeting on 2 April, the Chairman said that he had circulated a revised
proposal concerning the organization of the Ministerial Conference and the 50th Anniversary by fax
sent to all delegations on 31 March.  He proposed that on the basis of the consultations, the
Ministerial Conference and the commemoration of the 50th Anniversary be organized along the
following lines:
1. Discussion among Ministers on the substantive items would be held in working
sessions of the Ministerial Conference.  Minutes of these discussions would be
prepared and circulated to delegations.
2. The records of the 1998 Ministerial Conference would comprise the three statements
at the formal opening session, the written statements submitted by Ministers and the
proceedings of the formal closing session, which would, inter alia,  record a decision
on the date, venue and officers of the next Ministerial Conference.
3. The substantive outcome of the Ministerial Conference would be reflected in a short
text which would include clear directives with a time-bound process for preparations
for the third Ministerial Conference and would deal in a balanced way with both
substantive items i.e. implementation of WTO Agreements and future activities.  This
would be a negotiated text.
4. The commemoration of the 50th Anniversary would be a public event with the
participation of ministerial delegations, observer governments and internationalorganizations and attendance by non-governme ntal organizations, the press and other
personalities who might be invited.  The working sessions would be open to the
participation of all Members.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council agree to these organizational aspects.  This
would enable Members to move ahead with the preparation on the substance of the Conference.  He
also wished to touch on the question of preparations on the substance of the Conference.  At its
meeting on 24 April the General Council would receive the oral reports of the Chair of other WTO
bodies and this would allow to finalize the General Council report to the Ministerial Conference.
The only remaining matter would then be the proposed text of the substantive outcome.  In all
this preparatory activity, it would be essential for the Director-General and the Chairman of the
General Council to work in very close cooperation.  Furthermore, it would be critical to ensure a
process of consultation in which all Members would be able to make a full contribution.  To ensure
that this work be carried out efficiently, and in a manner which respected the foregoing objectives, heintended to ask the Director-General to carry out consultations with Members in close consultation
with him.  He further intended to hold meetings of the General Council weekly, if necessary, to allow
the consideration of reports by the Director-General on the progress of his consultations.  At theWT/GC/M/27
Page 9
informal meeting he had asked the Director-General to consult on an open-ended basis to ensure that
all delegations would have an opportunity to provide their views.  He had also invited the Director-
General to prepare a draft of the substantive outcome to the Ministerial Conference for circulation to
all Members before the General Council on 24 April.  This draft would be based on the discussions in
the General Council and on the views obtained by the Director-General in his consultations.  Finally,at the conclusion of this meeting he would propose to suspend the special meeting and leave the
General Council in session so that further meetings could be organized at short notice  He proposed to
tentatively pencil in the dates of 1, 7 and 15 May for further meetings.  It being understood that these
meetings would only be convened if necessary.
The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation had fully supported the text circulated
by the Chairman.  He wished to know if it was possible to circulate one fixed agenda for all meetings
rather than a circular with different agendas.
The Chairman said that it would be useful to have a fairly broad agenda heading along the
lines of preparations for the Ministerial Conference and the 50th Anniversary commemoration of the
multilateral trading system in order to ensure that the delegations would have the possibility to raiseany matters related to the preparations for these two events that they considered important.  He
proposed that the General Council take note of the st atements and agree to the points outlined by the
Chairman on the organizational aspects of the Ministerial Conference and the 50th Anniversary.
The General Council so agreed.
The meeting was then adjourned.Upon resumption of the General Council meeting on 14 April 1998, the Chairman said that at
the informal open-ended meeting held on 3 April, Members had considered certain developments
which had become apparent in recent days making it necessary to reconsider the current organization
of the Ministerial Conference and the 50th Anniversary commemoration.  At that time, it had become
apparent that several Heads of Government had been planning to attend, or had been giving serious
consideration to attending the 50th Anniversary event.  Several of them had informed that they would
only be able to attend in the afternoon of Tuesday, 19 May.  One Head of Government had expressed
a preference for Monday, 18 May, and two Heads of Government had announced their attendance on
Wednesday, 20 May.  It had also become apparent that there would be a bilateral summit meetingbetween the EC and the United States on Monday ,18 May, which would prevent their Ministers from
arriving in Geneva before lunch time on that day.  He noted that Members had stressed five important
points with the Director-General and himself.  First, the need to ensure the integrity of the Ministerial
Conference.  It would be very disruptive if the Conference were interrupted repeatedly to
accommodate appearances by Heads of State or Government.  Second, there was a need to retain thedistinction between the two events, i.e., the Mi nisterial Conference and the 50th Anniversary
commemoration should remain separate and distinct events.  Third, both events should be kept within
the three days:  i.e. 18-20 May.  Fourth, adequate time should be provided for an effective discussion
in working sessions on the two substantive items on the Agenda of the Ministerial Conference. Fifth,
if changes were to be made regarding the organization of the two events, such changes should bemade quickly and definitively to allow Members to plan their participation.
He then recalled that at its meeting on 22 October 1997, the General Council had agreed that
the Ministerial Conference should be held on 18-19 May and be followed by the commemoration of
the 50th Anniversary on 20 May.  Given the circumstances to which he had referred earlier, and onthe basis of the discussion in the informal meeting on 3 April, he proposed that the two events now be
organized as follows:WT/GC/M/27
Page 10
"1. The Ministerial Conference will open in the morning of Monday, 18 May as planned for the
three opening presentations, namely by the Chairman of the Ministerial Conference, the Director-
General, and the Chairman of the General Coun cil.  Following these statements, the formal
Ministerial Conference will be adjourned.
2. The working session on implementation will begin on the afternoon of Monday, 18 May and
continue until early evening.  If necessary, the possib ility of continuing this discussion in the morning
of  Tuesday, 19 May can be envisaged.
3. Tuesday, 19 May will be designated as the day for the 50th Anniversary commemoration.
Accordingly, the Ministerial Conference will adjourn either on the evening of Monday, 18 May or the
morning of Tuesday, 19 May, to ensure that the two events remain distinct.
4. The Ministerial Conference will reconvene on Wednesday, 20 May.  The working session on
future activities will be held in the morning, and the closing formal session at which the results will be
adopted will be held in the afternoon.
5. There will be no changes to the agreement regarding the other organizational matters that had
been reached on 2 April."
He proposed that the General Council agree to the proposed changes in the organization of the
two events.
The General Council so agreed.
The Chairman recalled that under the decision of 2 April regarding organizational matters,
most of the substantive discussions among Ministers would take place in working sessions that would
be held between the formal opening and closing plenary meetings.  Discussions in working sessions
would be reflected in the minutes. It was understood that observer governments and observer
international intergovernmental organizations would be entitled to attend working sessions but given
the limited amount of time available it was unlikely th at they would be able to speak.  They would
only be able to circulate written statements.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation supported the organizational aspects
referred to by the Chairman except for the question relating to observer governments.  He believed
that observer governments which were in the process of accession should be able to express their
views if they so wished, in particular with regard to implementation.
The Chairman said that the Ministerial Conference  should follow the rules of procedure, i.e.,
the Chairman would give the floor to an observer government after all Members had spoken.  He
proposed this because in view of the large number of Members that would wish to speak at working
sessions, he was not sure that observer governments would be able to take the floor unless Members
wanted to organize the meeting in such a way as to allow observer governments to speak.
The General Council took note of the statements.
The meeting was then adjourned.
Upon resumption of the General Council meeting on 17 May, the Chairman said that further
to the organizational matters agreed at the previous meetings, he wished to share some information
about how business at the inaugural session and the two working sessions and the closing session of
the Ministerial Conference would be conducted, as well as arrangements for the 50th Anniversary.
First, the inaugural session of the Ministerial Conference would be open on Monday, 18 May at 11WT/GC/M/27
Page 11
a.m. at the Palais des Nations.  The Conference would be called to order by Mr. Pascal Couchepin.
He would then read an opening address to Members.  Following the opening address, the Conference
would proceed to adopt the Agenda and to agree to the proposed organization of the work of the
Conference.  Following this action, the Chairman of the General Council would make a statement,
introducing the report of the General Council to the Conference.  This would be followed by theDirector-General's statement.  The meeting would then be adjourned.
As has been agreed Ministers would hold a working session on Monday, 18 May in the
afternoon to discuss questions relating to implementation.  They would then hold a second working
session on Wednesday, 20 May in the morning, to discuss general questions relating to future
activities of the WTO.  These discussions would be reflected in minutes similar to those prepared for
meetings of the General Council, reference to these minutes would be made in the summary recordsof the second session of the Ministerial Conference.  The working sessions would be held in the new
Council room of the WTO in the Centre William Rappard and Mr. Pascal Couchepin would preside
over the proceedings.  There would not be a speaker's list, in order to avoid that formal statements be
read out in plenary style sequence.  The Chairman w ould therefore, give the floor to delegations in the
order in which requested, as in regular meetings of the General Council.  He would have to requestdelegations to be extremely brief and to the point, so  as not to speak for more than three minutes at a
time.  Delegations might speak more than once in the course of discussions, provided they were brief
and there was sufficient time.
On Monday, 18 May in the evening, President Clinton would make a statement on the
commemoration of the 50th Anniversary at the Palais des Nations.  In order to allow Ministers and
delegates to arrive at the Palais and to be seated at least 15 minutes before the arrival of
President Clinton, the working session on Monday, 18 May in the afternoon would be adjourned at
5.30 p.m.  It was therefore proposed, that the working session for the afternoon commence at 2.30
p.m.  It was also his understanding, that the luncheon, offered by His Excellency Mr. PascalCouchepin to Ministers, on Monday 18 May, would be adjusted accordingly.  If Ministers were
unable to conclude their discussion on implementation by 5.30 p.m., the working session on
implementation might continue on the morning of Wednesday, 20 May before the working session on
future activities begins.
The closing session of the Ministerial Conference would be held in the afternoon of
Wednesday, 20 May.  Ministers would take up the following agenda items.  Under agendaitem 2 - action by Ministers,  Ministers were expected to adopt a Ministerial declaration.  With regard
to agenda item 3 – Date and venue of the next session of the Ministerial Conference,  Ministers were
expected to agree on the date and venue of the next session of the Ministerial Conference.  With
regard to agenda item 4 - Election of Officers, the Conference would proceed to the election of a
Chairperson and three Vice-Chairpersons.  The Chairman of the Ministerial Conference would thenclose the session.
The representative of Jamaica sought clarification with regard to the distinction between the
minutes of meetings and the summary records and what  would be the status of the minutes of working
sessions.
Mr. Barthel-Rosa, the Secretary of the General Council, said that the minutes of the working
sessions would be similar to the minutes of the General Council.  The summary records would only
contain the record of the actions taken in the formal sessions of the Ministerial Conference.  Those
summary records would contain cross-references to  the minutes of the working session.  The minutes
would therefore not be integral part of the summary records.  They would be separate but cross-
referenced in the summary records.
The representative of India asked about  the venue of the closing session.WT/GC/M/27
Page 12
Mr. Barthel-Rosa, Secretary of the General Counc il, said that both th e inaugural session and
the closing session would be held in the Assembly Hall at the Palais des Nations.  The working
sessions would, in principle, be held in the new Council room of the Centre William Rappard.  Any
changes would be announced in advance depending on the logistical arrangements and the timing of
the sessions.
The representative of Japan said that the Chairman had stated that Minister should limit their
statements to three minutes and he wished to know whether there was any way to control this.
The Chairman said that this depended on how the meeting would be conducted but, as it had
been understood in consultations, this was the best  approach for allowing a full range of exchange in
the meeting.
The General Council take note of this information and of the statements.
The Chairman said that the 50th Anniversary commemoration event would be held in the
Palais des Nations.  Plenary sessions would be organized to hear statements by the Heads of State or
Government that would attend.  These statements were presently scheduled to be made on 19 May,
beginning at 10.30 a.m. with an inaugural speec h, statement by the President of the Swiss
Confederation, as well as a short statement by the Director-General.  It was expected that statements
would preferably not take longer than 10 minutes e ach.  The morning plenary would be followed by a
luncheon, hosted by President Carté for Heads of State or government from 12 noon to 2 p.m.  Anafternoon plenary would be held from 2.45 p.m. to 5 p.m., to hear further statements by Heads of
State or government.  A reception for the Heads of State or government and heads of delegations of
Members and observers, would be held immediat ely following the plenary session.  The Swiss
authorities would host a reception for all participants at 7 p.m. in a different location.  Confirmation
concerning the attendance at the commemoration, at the level of Head of State or Government had
been received from the following Members:  the President of Brazil, the Prime Minister of Bulgaria,
the Prime Minister of Côte d'Ivoire, the President of Cuba, the Prime Minister of Dominica, the
President of the European Commission, the Prime Minister of Italy, the Crown Prince of Morocco, the
Prime Minister of Norway, the Prime Minister of Slovenia, the President of South Africa, the
President of Switzerland, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United
States.  The President of the United States was expected to make his address on the commemoration
of the 50th Anniversary in the evening of Monday, 18 May at the Assembly Hall of the Palais desNations.  He added that other delegations not represented at the level of Head of State or Government
at the 50th Anniversary would have the possibility of circulating written statements on that occasion.
The Council take note of this information.
The Chairman said that he wished to raise a matter relating to certain practical arrangements
for the working sessions at the Ministerial Conference.  It was his understanding that arrangements
regarding the accommodation of WTO Members, observer governments and observer organizations at
the working session, had been under consideration in the Budget Committee and that the Committee
wished to make a proposal to the General Council in this regard, for its formal approval.  He thereforewished to invite Mr. Meier, Chairman of the Budget Committee to introduce this matter to the
General Council.
Mr. Meier, Chairman of the Budget Committee said that the Committee had met on 8 May
1998.  During the discussions, the issue of seating arrangements for the working sessions of the
Ministerial Conference had been brought up.  The sessions would take place in the new Conference
room, where the capacity was only 680 places.  The view had been expressed that, considering the
limited space and the number of participants in the Conference, these places should be reserved for
the WTO Members and observer governments.  It had been noted that due to a video link, observerWT/GC/M/27
Page 13
organizations would be able to follow the debate from conference room W which was the former
Council room.  He only wished to inform the General Council about this constraint.
The General Council took note of the statement by the Chairman of the Budget Committee
and endorsed the proposal of the Budget Committee.
(b) Observer status for international intergovernmental organizations at the Ministerial
Conference
At the General Council meeting on 2 April, the Ch airman said that at an informal meeting of
the General Council on 17 and 30 March he had recalled that in the course of preparing for the
Singapore Ministerial Conference the General Council had agreed in 1996 to invite international
organizations as observers on the basis of the following guidelines:
(a) Organizations that were observers to the General Council would be automatically
invited;
(b) organizations that were observers to subsidiary bodies would be invited if they
requested to attend;  and
(c) consultations would be held to determine which other organizations that were not
observers to the WTO and that requested attendance at the Ministerial Conference
should be invited.
A list of the international organizations that had been invited to the Singapore Ministerial
Conference had been made available to delegations at the informal consultations.  He recalled that
paragraph 10 of the guidelines for observer status for international organizations in the WTO
contained in Annex 3 of the Rules of Procedure in  document WT/L/161 provided as follows:  "If for
any one-year period after the grant of observer status there has been no attendance by the observersuch status shall cease.  In the case of sessions of the Ministerial Conference this period shall be two
years."  Therefore, pursuant to this provision the organizations that had been granted observer status
on the Ministerial Conference in 1996 would be invited to the next Ministerial Conference.  With
regard to other international organizations that had not already been invited as observers to the
Ministerial Conference it had been suggested that  the General Council agree formally at today's
meeting to proceed on the basis of the same guidelines followed for the Singapore Ministerial
Conference .  In other words, organizations that  were observers to the General Council would be
invited automatically.  Those that were observers to subsidiary WTO bodies and requested attendance
at the Ministerial Conference as observers would also be invited.
Consultations would also be held on requests received from organizations not presently
observers to any WTO body.  Since Ministers would not read general statements at the MinisterialConference but be invited to circulate written statements, international organizations would be invited
to do the same.  This applied only to the Ministerial Conference since the format of the
50th Anniversary event remained to be decided.
 The General Council took note of the statement and agreed
 to the Chairman's approach.
 The meeting was then adjourned. Upon resumption of the General Council meeting on 17 May, the Chairman said that requests
for observer status at the Ministerial Conference had recently been received from four international
organizations, that were not presently observers to any WTO body.  These organizations were:  the
Agence de Coopération Cultural et Technique, the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development,WT/GC/M/27
Page 14
the Economic Cooperation Organization and the Energy Charter Secretariat.  The requests from these
organizations together with the background information submitted by them, had been sent by fax  in
the beginning of this week, to all Geneva-based delegations.  It was his understanding that delegations
had not had adequate time to consider these requests in order to allow the General Council to take any
action on them at the present meeting.  He therefore proposed to inform the respective organizationsthat their requests had not been received in time for the General Council to consider them for the
upcoming session of the Ministerial Conference.  Th ese organizations would be invited to renew their
requests for the next session of the Ministerial Conference.
The General Council took note of this information and so agreed
.
(c) Participation of least-developed countries
At the General Council meeting on 2 April, the Chairman said that for previous Ministerial
Conferences the participation of least-developed countries' representatives - travel cost and
subsistence - had been sponsored by the host country and/or voluntary contributions.  The initial
budget prepared by the Secretariat for the May Ministerial and the 50th Anniversary commemoration
had included a provision of CHF 1, 040,000 for this purpose.  The Committee on Budget, Finance andAdministration had deleted this provision from the final budget on the grounds that the past practice
of voluntary contributions to cover such costs should  be maintained.  He had been informed that thus
far no fund donors had volunteered.  He believed that the Secretariat had received enquiries from a
number of least-developed countries' Members about the availability of financing for their
participation at the meeting.  The lack of voluntary contributions might be detrimental to theparticipation of least-developed countries at the Ministerial Conference  and the 50th Anniversary
commemoration.  Therefore he wished to make an appeal to all Members which were in a position to
contribute to a Trust Fund to be created for that purpose, to contact the Secretariat as soon as possible.
He also asked the Secretariat to follow up and report on the matter.
The representative of Uganda wished to appeal to Members to enable least-developed
countries to participate in the Ministerial Conference.  He considered that what had been indicated by
the Chairman questioned the Budget Committee's decision that the past practice of voluntary
contributions was the best way forward.  Since ther e was no provision in the budget for that purpose it
was necessary to examine what had been done in other fora.  For example, in the UN system this was
done within the budget.
The representative of Egypt was concerned that least-developed countries would not be able
to attend the Ministerial Conference if funds were not made available to finance their attendance.
This raised the question of how to integrate the needs of least-developed countries in the system. He
proposed that the Budget Committee reconsider this matter.  He said that funds for the participation of
least-developed countries in the first Ministerial Conference had been made available by the hostcountry.  This could also be considered by  Switzerland.
The Chairman said that this was an important matter and proposed that the General Council
take note of the statements made.
The General Council so agreed.
(d) Attendance of non-governmental organizations
At the General Council meeting on 2 April, the Chairman informed the Council that 151
NGOs had requested a registration form to attend the Ministerial Conference and the 50th
Anniversary celebration.  As agreed on 19 February 1998, the same criteria for registration of NGOs
used for the Singapore Ministerial would apply for the forthcoming Ministerial and the 50thWT/GC/M/27
Page 15
Anniversary commemoration.  A list of NGOs having requested registration form would be circulated
on 3 April.  This list would be circulated for the information of Members before the confirmation of
registration would be sent by the Secretariat to the NGOs.  The confirmation of registration would be
sent to the NGOs early in the morning of 15 April.
The General Council took note of this information.
The representative of the European Communities said that it was his understanding that the
participation of NGOs in the Ministerial Conference would be limited since they would not be present
at the working sessions.
The Chairman said that this was a very useful clarification and he would ask the Secretariat to
ensure this.
The representative of Mexico said that it was important to clarify that in the case of NGOs
their attendance not participation was considered.
The General Council took note of the statements.
2. Venue of the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference
At the General Council meeting on 17 May, the representative of the United States said that
from the very beginning of GATT the United States had been a central player in the multilateral
trading system.  The United States, a founding member of GATT, had consistently been a major
proponent both of the multilateral trade liberalization and the reliance on strong multilateral system of
rules.  In the Round, it was the forefront of effo rts to expand and strengthen the system.  In recent
years, the United States had been important in the previous Ministerial meetings.  The presence of theUS President in this Conference demonstrated the United States continued strong commitment to the
WTO system.  The United States had never hosted a major Ministerial meeting of GATT or the WTO.
Therefore, her delegation hoped that the General Council would agree to submit a recommendation to
the Second Session of the Ministerial Conference to accept the United States offer to host the Third
Session.  She hoped that delegations would be in a position at the present meeting to respond
positively to this offer.  If the United States were to host the next Ministerial Conference, it would do
all that it could to ensure that a meeting was a great success for the WTO.
The representatives of the European Communities,  Egypt
,  Australia ,  Morocco ,  Norway ,
Switzerland,  Uruguay ,  Brazil ,  Tanzania ,  Romania ,  Guatemala , Japan ,  Bahrain ,  Hungary ,  Canada ,
Colombia,  Bolivia ,  Uganda ,  New Zealand ,  Brunei Darussalam ,  Turkey ,  Tunisia ,  Bulgaria ,  Israel ,
Nigeria,  Korea ,  Chile ,  Mexico ,  Peru , the Slovak Republic ,  Poland , the Czech Republic  and Hong
Kong, China welcomed and supported the US offer to host the Third Ministerial Conference.
The representative of the European Communitie s said that the Community believed that this
meeting would be of historic importance.  The extent of US hospitality and its organizational strength
and capacity were known.  The Community would therefore discuss this offer as a matter of urgencyin the next couple of hours with a view to revert to it as soon as possible.
The representative of Pakistan welcomed the US offer to host the Third Session of the
Ministerial Conference and said that if this offer was accepted by Members, Pakistan, which was a
long-standing partner of the United States, would support holding the next Ministerial Conference inthe United States.  He wished to know whether the United States had in mind any particular city and
date.WT/GC/M/27
Page 16
The representative of Cuba said that his delegation had noted with great interest the US offer
regarding the venue of the third Ministerial Conference, and in particular the US statement that it
would do its utmost to ensure that such a meeting was successful.  He hoped that the United States
would guarantee that all Members could obtain visas in order to attend this meeting.  He wished to
make this reservation because in the past some countries for some reasons had not been able to attendcertain events in spite of submitting the necessary requirements to the US authorities.
The representative of Egypt hoped that all Members would work towards a success of the
next Ministerial Conference which should be held in the year 2000.
The representative of Australia considered that the United States was in its proper place and
role of the leadership of the multilateral trading system.  The US offer was favorable for the future of
the WTO.
The delegation of Argentina said that the US offer should be accepted.  In accordance with
the programme of work and the negotiations agreed in Marrakesh, the next Ministerial Conference
would have to be held in 1999.  Argentina considered that this offer which demonstrated the UScommitment to the system was a good signal for further work and the future of the multilateral trading
system.
The representative of Morocco believed that this would be a good meeting since the United
States would provide the best organization.  This would also send the message of the US commitment
to the multilateral trading system.
The representative of Norway said that the US offer to host the next Ministerial Conference
would send a political message.
The representative of Switzerland said that one of the several reasons for its satisfaction was
the primary role of the United States in the world trading system since the establishment of GATT
which would guarantee the success of the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Uruguay said that the US offer would have a very important impact on
the multilateral trading system and its future agricultural reforms.
The representative of Tanzania said that at th is stage, he wished to raise another point with
regard to the Ministerial text which Tanzania fully supported.  One delegation had informed the
Director-General that Tanzania continued to oppose the consensus.  He had already rectified this
information but for the sake of transparency he wish ed to reiterate that his delegation joined in the
consensus on this text  He recalled that Tanzania had a strong position regarding certain issues.  Forexample, his delegation was concerned about new issues and had stated this not only as its position
but also that of the Ministers of Trade of Africa and the Ministers of Trade of ACP.  His delegation
had joined in this consensus on the understanding that Ministers could continue to express their
concerns about new issues since the text provided that new issues would be discussed and agreed by
consensus.  Therefore his delegation had no problem to support this text.
The Director-General thanked Tanzania for its statement and said that there had been no
implications with regard to what had been report ed to him.  He recalled that this matter had been
clarified and the position of Tanzania was now clear.  He thanked for supporting the declaration.
The representative of Japan said in the light of the statement made by Cuba, he asked what
arrangements would be required if a meeting was held outside the WTO headquarter.  For example, if
a meeting of the United Nations was held outside its headquarter this would require the conclusion of
the privilege immunity agreement pertained to the UN Secretariat and the host government.  UnderWT/GC/M/27
Page 17
these conditions, a host country could not refuse entries to any Member or observer.  Otherwise a
meeting would have to be cancelled and held in another country.  He said that his question concerned
the general practice or legal requirements for hosting a meeting outside the WTO headquarter and
whether the UN rule would apply.
The Chairman said that he was not in a position to provide an answer to this question.  He
thought that if a country was hosting a conferen ce of an organization all its members would be
entitled to participate in such a conference.  Confirmation and more detailed response on this matter
could be provided by the Secretariat.  The First Ministerial Conference had been held in Singapore
and the arrangements made in that connection would be useful as a precedent for organizing the third
Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Hungary said the US offer would have a positive impact for the future
of the multilateral trading system.
The representatives of Colombia, Bolivia  and Burundi  hoped that the General Council would
agree to recommend to Ministers to accept the US offer since this was a political gesture vis-à-vis  the
WTO.
The representative of Uganda said that the United States which had hosted many international
meetings would be able to organize and admit all delegations.  Uganda looked forward to the third
Ministerial Conference in the United States.
The representative of Nigeria said that he considered that the point raised by Cuba was
relevant.
The representative of Mexico said that the US offer to host the third Ministerial Conference
would demonstrate the leadership of, and support for, the multilateral trading system on the part of the
United States as well as its commitment to do its best to ensure that the third Ministerial Conference
was successful.  Mexico believed that at this stage it was not appropriate to take a decision on the city
or date. This could be determined at a later date.
The Chairman said that in the light of support for the US offer the General Council could take
a decision to recommend this proposal to the Ministerial Conference.  It was clear that this was a very
broad support and in the light of the statement made by the European Communities he would revert to
this matter at a later stage.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation was pleased with this warm
reception of the US offer and look forward to hosting the third Ministerial Conference.
The General Council took note of the statements.
3.  Electronic commerce
At the General Council  meeting on 17 May, the representative of the United States said that her
country wished to propose that a declaration on global electronic commerce separate from the Ministerial
Declaration be taken up during the Ministerial Conference.  The issue of electronic commerce had
informally been discussed with delegations which had indicated that this matter should not be included in
the Ministerial Declaration but that a separate document be developed.  This would permit to keep newissues out of the Ministerial Declaration while allowing for a multilateral declaration on electronic
commerce containing the two following elements: (i) a work programme to identify and address trade-WT/GC/M/27
Page 18
related issues with regard to electronic commerce;  and (ii) a standstill not to impose customs duties on
cross-border electronic transmissions.
The representative of Egypt welcomed the US statement and said that his delegation had
previously stated that the development aspects of electronic commerce should be taken into
consideration.  For this reason, Egypt had presented a paper on this subject to the Committee on Trade
and Development which outlined developing countries' interests with regard to this important mode of
commercial transactions.  His delegation was concerned about the United States' reference to electronic
transmissions since this term covered a broader range of issues not limited only to electronic commerce.
He asked for these views to be taken into consideration in the preparation of a document for adoption by
the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of India sought clarification from the United States as to whether its intention
was to request the General Council to adopt any specific document on electronic commerce at the present
meeting.
The representative of the United States said that although informal consultations had been held
on this matter, the United States was not in a position to submit a final text for adoption by the General
Council.  In an effort to reach consensus on the current text further consultations would be held later in
the day.
The Chairman said that the United States was working towards a multilateral declaration on
electronic commerce to be submitted for adoption by the Ministerial Conference.  This declaration would
be a separate text not included in the Ministerial Declaration.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had participated in the consultations on
this matter and had sent the current text on electronic commerce to its authorities.  It now was awaiting
appropriate instructions on this text.  He noted that further consultations would be held and looked
forward to participating therein.
The representative of Argentina said it was his understanding that further consultations on
electronic commerce would be held later in the day.  He therefore wished to be informed of the
procedures to be followed after these consultations were concluded.
The representative of Jamaica said that if Members decided to include this matter in the draft
Ministerial Declaration he had suggested that this be done under the present paragraph 9(d) thereof.  As a
result, this matter would automatically become part of the work programme of the WTO and of any
future negotiations.  Normally, if such an important matter with far-reaching implications was brought to
the WTO it was first raised in the General Council in order to allow Members to express their views.  Herecalled that the United States had made its proposal on electronic commerce at the February General
Council meeting.  Some delegations had expressed their views and had presented papers regarding this
proposal.  The General Council could have taken a decision on this matter and its action would have been
reflected in its report for submission to the Ministerial Conference.  Subsequently, the Ministerial
Conference by taking note of the General Council's report would endorse this matter in the WTO workprogramme.  This would enable Members to continue the examination of this subject in a low-key
manner.  Electronic commerce was global and went beyond national borders.  The WTO's work dealt
mainly with two aspects of liberalization:  market access and rules and disciplines.  Any future
negotiations on electronic commerce would entail several sectors such as goods, services, government
procurement and intellectual property rights.  The most recent text on electronic commerce based oninformal consultations outlined the process aimed at reaching a consensus.  However, he was concerned
about possible implications if a declaration on electronic commerce was adopted by the Ministerial
Conference.  He wished to know if this implied that electronic commerce would become part of any
comprehensive negotiations.  He was also concerned that some references contained in the current textWT/GC/M/27
Page 19
required clarification, in particular with regard to relevant subsidiary bodies.  He drew attention to the fact
that certain WTO bodies such as the Council for Trade in Goods,  the Council for Trade in Services or the
Dispute Settlement Body were not considered subsidiary.  He hoped that his concerns would be taken up
in the consultations to be held shortly with the United States.  Since no decision would be taken at the
present meeting, he wished to be informed of any further procedural steps and how this matter could beplaced on the agenda of the Ministerial Conference.
Mr. Barthel-Rosa, Secretary of the General Council, said that Members were entitled to make
proposals under item 2 of the agenda of the Ministerial Conference for action on a given subject.  Under
this item, Ministers would adopt the Ministerial Declaration and could also decide to adopt other texts to
be submitted to them for consideration.  This did not require action by the General Council.
The representative of Mexico noted with satisfaction that consultations on this matter would
continue since some concerns still existed and, at this stage, it was not possible to come up with a final
text.  He believed that further consultations would provide the opportunity to conclude this matter.
The representative of the European Communities noted that consultations on this important
matter would continue.  The Community had played an active and constructive role in the consultations
held thus far in an attempt to reach the language which would be acceptable to all.  It would continue to
deal with this proposal as a matter urgency.  The Community intended to hold internal discussions and
wished to ensure Members that it would do its best to reach its conclusions as soon as possible.
The representative of Romania expressed his delegation's satisfaction with regard to the US
proposal.  His delegation had noted the statement made by the United States at the February General
Council meeting with regard to its intentions to put forward a proposal on a tariff standstill for electronic
commerce as well as the views expressed by other delegations that a programme of work for electronic
commerce be established.  His delegation was satisfied that the current proposal contained both elementsand welcomed the transparency of the United States and other delegations in carrying out their
consultations which had been open to the participation of all.  His delegation supported this proposal and
believed that it should become a multilateral decision.  It looked forward to participating in further
consultations aimed at concluding this matter.
The representative of Brazil said that his delegation had participated in the consultations and
supported a multilateral decision to be taken on this issue.  His country was ready to accept the current
text which contained elements such as a programme of work, a tariff standstill and a review of this issue
at the next Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation fully supported the US proposal.
Switzerland had participated and would continue to participate in the consultations which it hoped would
shortly be concluded so that a declaration containing a programme of work and a tariff standstill for
electronic commerce could be adopted by the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation had noted the US
proposal.  His country had participated in the consultations and had some concerns.  It was necessary that
any decision to be taken on this issue be coherent and compatible with constitutional requirements of
countries.  His delegation wished to participate in the further consultations to be held on this matter.
The representative of Australia said that his delegation welcomed the inclusion by the United
States of this item on the agenda of the present meeting in order to hear views with regard to progress
thereon.  His delegations had participated in the consultations and supported the current text as it stood.
Australia believed that it would be a useful achievement if the Ministerial Conference adopted a
declaration on this important subject.WT/GC/M/27
Page 20
The representative of Israel said that as his delegation had already indicated, Israel supported the
US proposal and the current text as it stood, which he hoped could serve as a basis for a multilateral
declaration.
The representative of Cuba said that, at this stage, he wished to be informed of the procedures to
be followed in this case and whether a formal meeting of the General Council would be held with a view
to adopting this text or whether  an informal meeting of the General Council would be convened.
The representative of Canada supported the text which had been discussed in informal
consultations and was encouraged by progress made in the past week.  Canada looked forward to this text
being submitted to Ministers for adoption.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation had a strong interest in the US
proposal and had participated in the consultations held on this matter.  He suggested that the best course
of action would be for the General Council to make recommendations or to refer a possible text to the
Ministerial Conference.  After the completion of consultations, the General Council should, at least, be
informed of the state of play.  This was a procedural question of whether the General Council shouldmeet prior to the Ministerial Conference in order to enable delegations to express their views on the
consultations.
The Chairman said that it might be useful to hold a brief session of the special meeting of the
General Council at some point prior to the start of the Ministerial Conference on 18 May in order to
consider both this item and the question of a venue of the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference.
He suggested that such a meeting might be held at 9 a.m. on 18 May.
The representative of Japan wished to associate his delegation with the previous speakers and
expressed gratitude for the US proposal and its text.  Japan was satisfied with the current  text which took
into account its interest and some of the points raised by developing countries.  His delegation was ready
to continue working in order for this important task to be concluded in time before the Ministerial
Conference.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation continued to fully support the process
under way on electronic commerce and would fully participate in advancing the current text for adoption
by the Ministerial Conference.  He believed that this would be an excellent additional outcome of theConference.
The representative of Hungary said that since the beginning his delegation had supported the US
proposal and considered that the current text as it stood was acceptable.  He hoped that, by the end of the
day, a multilateral solution, acceptable to all delegations, would be found.
The representative of Guatemala said that her delegation had participated in the consultations on
this important subject.  Guatemala supported the fundamental ideas contained in the text and hoped that it
would be possible to reach consensus on this matter.
The representative of Iceland said that his country fully supported the US proposal on this matter
and was satisfied with the current text as it stood.  Iceland attached importance to not imposing customs
duties on electronic commerce and hoped that this would be noted by the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Colombia said that his delegation had given its support with regard to the
US proposal and considered that this issue was of great importance for the work of the WTO.  He
underlined the importance of the efforts to be carried out in the next few hours in order to reach
consensus on this matter.  With regard to the procedures, he believed that the most appropriate way to
proceed would be to reconvene the meeting of the General Council in order to draw up recommendations.WT/GC/M/27
Page 21
As long as the Ministerial Conference was in session, the General Council could meet, at any time, in
order to submit recommendations to Ministers.
The representative of Argentina noted the Chairman's proposal to hold a meeting of the General
Council on Monday morning.  However, his delegation would not be able to receive instructions from the
capital within such a short period of time.  Due to the time difference it would be difficult for Argentina
to receive instructions before Monday afternoon.  Therefore, such a meeting should be held on Monday
afternoon to allow sufficient time for consultation with the capital on this matter.
The Chairman said he was reluctant to propose that a meeting of the General Council be held the
next day in the afternoon at the same time as the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Turkey wished to associate his delegation with the view expressed by
Argentina.  He believed that some delegations required final instructions and if an early meeting was held
his delegation could not have a positive answer.  He therefore supported Argentina on this matter.
The representative of Switzerland said that in accordance with the WTO Agreement when the
Ministerial Conference was in session, the General Council did not need to meet in addition since its
powers were taken over by the Ministerial Conference.  He was not sure whether it would be necessary to
have two parallel meetings at the same time and believed that this question of procedure should be
clarified.
The Chairman said that two separate issues required further consideration by the General Council
before the Ministerial Conference.  The first concerned the venue of the Third Session of the Ministerial
Conference.  On this, only one delegation which had expressed certain degree of support still needed
some time for its internal consultations before finalizing its position.  Under the circumstances, the
General Council could take a decision, subject to confirmation by the delegation of the EuropeanCommunities, to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that it accept the US offer to host the Third
Session in the United States.  He expected that later that evening the European Communities would be in
a position to indicate its view.  With regard to electronic commerce, following the conclusion of
consultations, this matter should be included on the agenda of the Ministerial Conference either directly
or indirectly through the General Council.  However, this could be considered at a later stage since the
meeting of the General Council could be called at short notice.  If delegations were agreeable, he would
propose to suspend the present meeting on the understanding that the General Council could bereconvened at short notice.
The representative of Venezuela recalled that the United States had made its proposal on
electronic commerce at the February General Council meeting.  His delegation which had an interest in
this matter, had participated in consultations.  Currently, Venezuela had carried out its analysis of thisissue and still had some concerns with regard to the text.  Therefore, his delegation was not in a position
to provide its final decision.  Nevertheless, it considered that any resolution of this matter should be
within a multilateral framework.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation had noted all the comments made
by different delegations.  She believed that there was a great deal of goodwill and that some further work
would lead to a positive result.  The United States would continue consulting with those delegations that
had additional questions, and noted that informal consultations had been scheduled for later that evening.
The Chairman proposed that, subject to confirmation by the European Communities, the General
Council agree to recommend to the Ministerial Conference that it accept the US offer to host the Third
Session of the Ministerial Conference.
The General Council so agreed.WT/GC/M/27
Page 22
The Chairman said that this decision would be considered formally agreed once he had had
confirmation from the European Communities and would then be circulated to all Members.  With regard
to electronic commerce, he proposed to close the present meeting on the understanding that a further
special meeting could be convened to consider the question of electronic commerce if this were deemed
necessary in the light of the consultations to be carried out by the United States.
The General Council so agreed.
The Chairman said that this had been a very useful exercise in transparency on electronic
commerce and thanked the United States for inclusion of this matter on the agenda which provided
delegations with the opportunity to express their positions.
The General Council took note of the statements.
__________