RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/M/24
23 September 2002
(02-5082)
Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 JULY 2002
Note by the Secretariat 1
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments held a meeting on 17 July 2002.  The agenda for
the meeting is contained in WTO/AIR/1864.
A. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
2. The Chairperson recalled that, at the previous m eeting, some delegations had reiterated their
interest in discussing proposals concerning the classification of legal, postal and environmental
services.  In that context the desirability of seeking common ground among the various classification
proposals in a given sector had been pointed out.  To facilitate that effort, a suggestion had been made
that the Secretariat prepare a compendium of all classification proposals submitted to the SpecialSession and/or to the Committee to date.
3. He also recalled that some delegations had w ondered how the compendium would assist them
in the current process.  Given the range of classification proposals made, he felt that Members might
benefit from taking stock of classification suggestions for individual sectors.  The proposed
compendium could be in table format comparable to that done for the negotiating proposals, andremain confined to classification suggestions made by delegations, regardless of the forum where they
had been presented.  Where more than one proposal had been submitted by a delegation on a given
sector, the delegation concerned should indicate to the Secretariat the proposal to be included.  The
compendium would reflect the proposals as they had been formulated in the documents containing
them and would not include any analysis by the Se cretariat.  The idea was to provide a tool to
facilitate discussions and enhance delegations' understanding of the various approaches suggested.
Members would not have to agree on any of the suggested approaches and the aim would not be a
potential revision of document W/120.  Such a compendium could also assist Members in the
evaluation of requests.  At the same time, exchanging views on the different classifications would
help delegations to assess what approach they mi ght want to follow in their forthcoming offers.
4. The representative of Colombia supported the proposal as described by the Chairperson;  the
ensuing discussions would not affect W/120 or prejudge the classification to be used by each
Member.
5. The representative of the European Communities also supported the proposal.  Concerning
classification work, it would be helpful to pursue technical discussions on the proposals put forward
by the EC delegation on postal and courier, environmental, and energy services.  The representative
also drew the Committee's attention to the EC proposal on computer and related services submitted tothe Special Session, document S/CSS/W/34/Add.1. It was necessary to clarify the coverage of the
sector, as contained in provisional CPC 84. Tec hnological changes had rendered computer-related
services more varied and complex.  The borderline between computer-related services and other
sectors, such as telecommunications, was becoming less clear, and it was increasingly important to
avoid misunderstandings on classification.  The objective was to reach a clear understanding of the
                                                     
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/CSC/M/24
Page 2
scope of coverage of CPC 84 and not to modify the CPC or negotiate an Annex.  Other proposals in
the sector raised similar issues.
6. Turning to legal services, the EC representative shared the stated goals of the Australian
proposal and its supplements, namely, to better reflect market reality and provide an opportunity for
increasing the number and quality of commitments in the sector.  The current classification providedsufficient flexibility to achieve those goals.  There was still some uncertainty, however, whether
Australia aimed at changing the current classification or providing guidance for scheduling
commitments in legal services.  The EC had no problem with the terminology of "host country law"
and "home country law".  However, if that terminology was to be converted into a rigid classification,
difficulties might arise.  For example, if a Member were to take commitments only for "home country
law", what would be the situation of a foreign lawyer that was qualified in host country law or of a
foreign law firm employing lawyers qualified in the host country?  Could they be prevented fromproviding legal advice in cases in which home and host country law were relevant at the same time?
According to Australia's proposal, practice of "third country law" was subject to qualification in that
third country.  This might imply that "home country law" and "third country law" had the same
meaning, and there would thus be no need for the latter category.  Finally, further work on the
definition of "international law" was necessary.  Law could have an international content, but rely ondomestic source and jurisdiction.  Similarly, law could have an international source, combined with
domestic jurisdiction.  It was necessary to reflect further on those issues.
7. As to the proposal for a compendium, the repres entative of the United States said that the
negotiating proposals submitted to the Special Session were in many cases intended to promote
discussion, including with respect to classification issu es contained in them.  In a number of cases the
proposals had produced such discussion which, in turn, might have caused the submitting countries to
reconsider and revise their thinking.  His delegation had no objection to the proposed compendium,
but it was important to keep in mind that the cla ssification suggestions contained in proposals might
not reflect the submitters' most recent thinking.
8. The representative of Thailand said that the compendium should be produced as soon as
possible, as it would help to enhance small delegations' understanding of the status of classification
issues.  The representative of Canada also supported the proposal, noting that each delegation could
indicate to the Secretariat what documents, should be included in the compendium.
9. The representative of Japan also found the proposed compendium to be helpful.  Turning to
the EC's proposal on computer and related services, he tended to agree with the description of the
situation in the sector.  His delegation was interested in exploring what could be done to get a better
idea of the coverage of computer and related serv ices.  In supporting the proposed compendium, the
representative of Chile stressed the importance of clarifying classification issues on a multilateral
basis, rather than bilaterally.
10. The Chairperson observed that no objection had been expressed and proposed that the
Committee request the Secretariat to prepare a compendium of existing classification proposals.
Delegations could indicate as soon as possible to the Secretariat what proposal should be included.
11. The Committee so agreed.
B. MATTERS RELATING TO THE SCHEDULING OF COMMITMENTS
1. Incorporation of new commitments into Members' schedules
12. The Chairperson recalled that at previous formal meeting delegations had expressed
preliminary comments on the Note by the Secretariat, document S/CSC/W/33.  It had been agreed that
the Committee would continue discussing this matter informally and had done so in a meeting held on
27 June 2002.  The informal discussions had focused on three aspects: a) specific comments andS/CSC/M/24
Page 3
questions on the content of the Note; b) specific issues where further reflection was required, and c)
indications of how soon delegations expected to be in a position to agree in principle on the approach
to be followed.
13. In summarizing the informal discussion, the Chairperson said that all participants had
supported a consolidation approach.  There seemed to be consensus that offers should be submitted onthe basis of draft consolidated schedules, on which an early decision was necessary.  As to the content
of the Secretariat Note, document S/CSC/W/33, a number of comments had been offered. They had
focused on the relationship between new and old commitments and the desirability of having recourse
to pre-existing schedules in case of controversies in the future.  The need to secure that existing
commitments would not be undermined in the consolidation process had been emphasized and
supported by all that had spoken.  To that aim, a strict process of verification of consolidated
schedules was suggested at the multilateral level, to detect at the outset any error that could undermine
existing commitments.  Additionally, the principle of non-retroactive application of rules or
commitments had been stated as a legal principle which safeguarded existing commitments and the
ensuing rights.  Also, reference had been made to the extent to which the Secretariat could assist
Members in consolidating their respective schedules and/or verifying the consolidation done.  More
discussion as to how changes could be shown in a consolidated schedule had been considerednecessary and the desirability of editorial conventions had been noted.  To assist the Committee in
discussing the role of the Secretariat and the conventions for indicating changes in draft offers, a Note
had been requested from the Secretariat, which had been distributed on 16 July 2002 as JOB(02)/88.
A number of delegations had indicated that they would be in a position to agree in principle on the
consolidation approach at the July meeting.
14. Agreement on a consolidation approach would not conclude the work on this matter, as
remaining practical and legal issues that had been raised would still need to be resolved.  The idea was
to continue discussing those issues, while the pr eparatory work concerning the schedules was being
done in parallel.  He invited the Secretariat to introduce its Note on Procedures, contained in
JOB(02)/88 of 16 July 2002.
15. A representative of the Secretariat pointed out that the estimated time-frame for circulation of
draft consolidated schedules in paragraph 3, December 2002, had been based on an assessment of the
workload involved in doing the consolidation for all Members.  A smaller workload would shorten the
time-frame.  In paragraph 4 the Note had not provided for a verification procedure between the
Secretariat and delegations, as it had been done for the database, given that the consolidated schedules
would be given to delegations in electronic form as a working document to be changed to highlight
initial offers.  The Note also suggested some editorial conventions in paragraphs 5 and 6.  Inparagraph 8, the use of certain types of brackets, "braces", was also suggested to provide additional
information on proposed changes.  Finally, paragraph 9 proposed the organization of a seminar to
provide technical assistance on the drafting of offers in Geneva.
16. To structure the discussion,  the Chairperson suggested that delegations could address, first,
the two Notes before the Committee, i.e. documents S/CSC/W/33 and the informal note on practicalprocedures, JOB(02)/88, followed by indications of whether a decision could be taken at that stage.
17. The representative of China requested clarification regarding the discrepancy between
document S/CSC/W/33, where paragraph 5 stated that 86 Members required consolidation, and
JOB(02)/88, where paragraph  2 stated that  75 sche dules were to be consolidated.  She also pointed
out that attachment 2, first column, referred to "Country" rather than "Member", and requested acorrigendum.
18. The representative of Switzerland considered consolidation to be the best approach and said
that his delegation was ready for a decision to be taken.  The Secretariat should prepare draft
consolidated schedules as soon as possible.  To avoid confusion each Member should check the draft
produced by the Secretariat, and thus no verification procedure was necessary.  He welcomed the ideaS/CSC/M/24
Page 4
contained in paragraph 9 to hold a seminar on the drafting of schedules. He requested a correction to
the report of the previous meeting, contained in document S/CSC/M/23.  In paragraph 24, the
sentence "It would be interesting if Members elected to make new commitments…" should be
replaced by "It would be useful to know if Me mbers had decided to make new commitments on the
basis of CPC rev.1 or on the basis of the old CPC."
19. The representative of Thailand expressed support for the consolidation approach and could
take a decision to that effect.  She requested clarification as to the third sentence of paragraph 3 of
JOB(02)/88, where it was said that "Each consolidated schedule would then be circulated to the
Member concerned who would use it as the basis for the presentation of its offer."  Did that mean that
the draft consolidated schedules would not be made available to other Members?  Given the common
interest in having the commitments of each Member in a single document and that the database was
not up to date, she requested that the consolidated schedules of all Members be made available inelectronic format by the  Secretariat.  On the suggestion for a seminar, Thailand welcomed any
technical assistance concerning the elaboration of offers that the Secretariat could provide to Geneva-
based representatives.  Rather than a seminar, she felt that a workshop on scheduling commitments
would be particularly helpful.
20.  The representative of the United States expressed support for the consolidation approach in
the interest of promoting greater certainty and clar ity in Members' commitments.  He agreed with the
view that the term "consolidation" was more appropriate than the term "replacement" contained in
document S/CSC/W/33, in particular to underscore that the Uruguay Round and other previously
negotiated commitments remained binding unless explicitly renegotiated.  In adopting a consolidation
approach it was important for Members to reaffirm the commitment contained in Article XIX of theGATS to achieve a progressively higher level of liberalization.  Any modification or withdrawal of
existing commitments, including the addition of new terms or conditions, would be subject to the
requirements of Article XXI.  Delegations needed more time to review JOB (02)/88, on a
preliminarily basis, his delegation had no objections to the editorial conventions suggested.  With
respect to the consolidation of schedules, the US was of the view that such a task should beundertaken by individual Members, but this was for each Member to decide.  His delegation would
provide the consolidated schedule of the United States.  The suggested seminar on drafting offers
should be scheduled around the meetings of the Services Council and subsidiary bodies, late in 2002
or early in 2003, to allow for the participation of capital-based officials.
21. The representative of Japan also supported a decision in favour of the consolidation approach.
His delegation preferred that the Secretariat prepare a draft consolidated version of Japan's schedule
of commitments.  He shared the view that common editorial conventions for the draft offers werenecessary.
22. The representative of India also supported the consolidation or replacement method.  He
stressed that the legal status of existing commitments had to be preserved in case of future disputes. In
this context it was imperative to ensure the accuracy of the draft consolidated schedules to be used for
the purpose of presenting offers.  JOB(02)/88 paragraph 4, referred to the desirability of each Memberverifying its own schedule.  On the other hand, document S/CSC/W/33, paragraph 29, said that
ensuring the accuracy of such consolidation would rely on verification by Members.  His delegation
took note of the explanation that had been given by the Secretariat in introducing JOB(02)/88
regarding the lack of need for a verification procedure.  However, India felt it essential that the
consolidated schedules, either done by a Member on its own or by the Secretariat, be submitted to alldelegations for their examination prior to being modified for the presentation of offers.  Such
verification procedure could be similar to that done previously for the electronic schedules, contained
in document S/CSC/W/8, paragraph 10.  He invited other delegations' ideas as to how to ascertain or
verify the accuracy of all consolidated schedules before initial offers would be presented.S/CSC/M/24
Page 5
23. The representative of Colombia expressed support for the consolidation approach.  As
previous speakers, her delegation saw the need for all draft consolidated schedules to be circulated to
all Members, regardless of who did the consolidation work.  Regarding the suggestion for a seminar
or technical workshop, her delegation concurred with previous speakers that it should be scheduled
around Special Session meetings to allow capital-based officials to attend.
24. In addressing the questions posed, a representative of the Secretariat said that the
discrepancies between documents S/CSC/W/33 and JOB(02)/88 were due to the fact that, when
counting Members, the members of the European Communities were counted individually, while in
counting schedules they represented one entity. As to Attachment 2, he said that a corrigendum would
be issued.  Concerning the verification of consolidated schedules, the procedural note did not give a
clear view on the issue in paragraph 3.  It was clear, however, that the circulation of consolidated
schedules produced by the Secretariat would enhance the opportunities for verification by delegationsat an early stage.  Concerning the seminar, the Secretariat would schedule it back-to-back to Services
Council meetings.  As to the work to be done by the Secretariat, he said that the Secretariat could
prepare a draft consolidated schedule for all Members except for those that would indicate otherwise,
as suggested by previous speakers.
25. The representative of Venezuela expressed support for the consolidation or replacement
method and was ready to take a decision.  The Secretariat could do the consolidation work for those
Members that so requested, as the process should be Member-driven with priority being given to
developing countries.  Her delegation was one of those accepting the assistance by the Secretariat in
that regard.  The verification of the draft consolidated schedules was a task that could be left to
Members.  The editorial conventions suggested were useful and highlighted the various situations thatcould arise in the process, including those regarding classification changes.  Intensive scheduling
workshop for negotiators, rather than a seminar, should preferably be held before 2003.  Given the
nature of such an activity, it was necessary to ensure a manageable number of participants.  For
instance, workshop could be conducted in the three official languages in parallel.
26.  The representative of Nicaragua favoured the consolidation approach and was ready to take a
decision.  As to the procedural Note, he shared the views expressed by previous speakers concerning
the need to ensure the accuracy of the draft consolidated schedules at the outset and, possibly, the
need for a verification exercise.  He endorsed th e editorial conventions suggested in the informal
Note.  As to the suggested seminar, he stressed th e need to take into consideration the classification
issues that had been raised thus far.  The Secr etariat could explore the possibility of funding the
participation of capital-based developing country representatives.
27. The representative of Uruguay reiterated support for a consolidated approach and was ready
to take a decision.  He also felt that the Secretariat could prepare a draft schedule for Members.  As to
the proposed seminar, it was a good idea to have it before 2003, if possible back-to-back with other
services meetings, and avoid a clash with other negotiating sessions to facilitate attendance.
28. The representative of Korea supported the consolidation approach or replacement of
schedules and an early decision on the matter.  His delegation also favoured holding a seminar on
drafting of offers as soon as possible.
29. The representative of Canada reiterated support for a consolidation approach.  In keeping with
the principle of progressive liberalization, discussions to incorporate  new commitments should aim at
increasing the level of liberalization already achieved in the Uruguay Round and extended
negotiations.  It was important to ensure that existing commitments were preserved in the currentnegotiations. Her delegation felt that the Secretariat could consolidate the schedules of all Members
except those that communicated otherwise by a certain date to be decided.  The draft consolidated
schedules, including those that would be prepared by a Member itself, should be made available to all
Members.  She also supported having a seminar soon, bearing in mind the need to avoid overlap with
other meetings to ensure maximum attendance.  Turning to JOB(02)/88, the section in paragraph 6,S/CSC/M/24
Page 6
she understood that bolded text could be used also to indicate new limitations or changes to existing
text.  On the section referring to other technical refinements that do not alter the scope or substance of
an existing commitment, she wondered what was the underlying intention of that paragraph.  How
would it be read in the context of paragraph 8 of the same Note, would the Member concerned have to
explain the need for technical refinements?  In the relation to paragraph 8, how would subsequentchanges to the offers be indicated?
30. The representative of Hong Kong, China supported the consolidation or replacement
approach and was ready to take a decision on the matter.  It was important to discuss the practical
details, including the question of legal status of previous schedules.  Given that the draft consolidated
schedules to be prepared by the Secretariat were to be used as working documents without legal
implications, their circulation should not represent a problem.  He wondered whether these Members
preparing their own draft consolidated schedules would also circulate them generally.  As to
JOB(02)/88, he requested clarification as to whether the conventions for editorial changes would also
be used by the Secretariat in preparing the draft consolidated schedules.  He supported the proposed
seminar on drafting offers.
31. The representative of Chile favoured a consolidation approach and a decision at that meeting.
She welcomed the editorial conventions proposed in JOB(02)/88, and wondered how subsequent
changes would be indicated.  The Secretariat should start work on consolidation of schedules as early
as possible, so that all draft schedules could soon be circulated.  The draft consolidated schedules
prepared by a Member should also be circulated for verification purposes and to ensure transparency.
32. The representative of Brazil reiterated support for the replacement method and the creation of
single schedules for each Member to serve as the basis for the negotiations. The reasons had already
been expressed in the informal meeting in June, namely, legal certainty, transparency, but also the
need to improve comparability among Members' schedules in the negotiations.  Furthermore, he
underscored the objective of enhancing of the general negotiating process.  Members should be able
to assess from the outset the nature and value of any modifications introduced in the offer in relation
to the old schedule.  It was for Members to do this assessment from day one, which was the mainadvantage of working on the basis of a single schedule.  It was very important to utilise a set of
editorial conventions, as those contained in JOB(02)/88.  He welcomed the idea of a seminar, which
should be held sooner rather than later.
33. Turning to document S/CSC/W/33, he said that the question of the legal status of old
commitments was an important issue from a systemic point of view.  Bearing in mind views
expressed at the informal meeting in June, his delegation had some comments which were not
intended to prejudge its position in the market access negotiations.  Some Members had expressedinterest in ensuring that existing commitments w ould not be undermined as a result of the ongoing
negotiations.  His delegation shared that interest since the objective of the negotiations, as stated in
paragraph 7 of document S/CSC/W/33, was achieving progressively higher levels of liberalization.
On the other hand, in the present context of negotiations many situations could arise.  The results
would have to be assessed in their totality and be accepted by Members as a whole, or in some casesby a critical mass of them. It was expected that all Members would make improvements to their
commitments.  However, was it desirable to completely preclude the possibility that a Member might
wish, for whatever reason, to modify something in the course of negotiations so as to make an entry
more restrictive than it had been? this has already happened in previous negotiations in the WTO and
GATT context.  In such a case, there were two possib ilities.  First, if a modifying Member wanted to
make a commitment more restrictive, it would n eed to offer sufficiently better commitments
elsewhere to convince the rest of the membership to accept that modification.  The other possibility
would be to invoke Article XXI.  This would no t make sense, however, since a negotiating process
was already in place.  Any Member could invoke Article XXI outside of a negotiating context, having
to accept the uncertainty of that procedure since nobody knew what could result from the calculationof compensation.  It would seem preferable to negotiate instead in the context of the request-offerS/CSC/M/24
Page 7
process instead of resorting to Article XXI.  For example, if a Member decided to make a punctual
modification in distribution services to exclude a product, it could offer compensation through better
commitments in another sector, e.g. financial or telecommunication services, in the ongoing
negotiations.  If the view was taken that the results of the negotiations to be incorporated in the new
schedule could only be improvements such a punc tual modification would not be possible.  His
delegation felt that this would reduce the margin for Members to negotiate more freely and attain
higher levels of liberalization as the end result.  Another conceivable scenario was that after
conclusion of the negotiations a Member realized that it had not noticed a modification in a schedule
that appeared to be more restrictive.  His delegation was not sure that in this case there should be a
presumption that the old schedule was valid.  There we re precedents of such situations.  He recalled
that paragraph 8 of document S/CSC/W/33 read that "In cases of extended negotiations where
Members wished to allow for changes of any possible nature , including withdrawals , the relevant
negotiating mandate included explicit language authorizing modifications and withdrawals
notwithstanding Article XXI of GATS."  That made logical sense in a negotiating context.  Paragraph
9 of that document gave another example taken from the Marrakesh Protocol related to trade in goods.
In paragraph 7, the Protocol specified that "the Members to whom the schedule relates shall be
deemed to have taken appropriate action as would have been otherwise necessary under relevantprovisions of Article XXVIII of GATT 1947 or  1994."  Document S/CSC/W/33 concluded by
suggesting that Members could, if they wished, introduce into the Sixth Protocol a general provision
of this type covering all Members' schedules.  His delegation thought this to be a relevant
consideration.  Brazil had no hidden agenda in making these points, but was an active participant in
the market access negotiations and intended to continue playing an active role.
34. The representative of Mexico said that Article XXI allowed Members to renegotiate
scheduled commitments at any time.  It was necessary to draw a clear distinction between the ongoing
negotiations for greater liberalization under Article XIX.  These were completely different exercises,
the former was destined to achieve further liberalization and the latter to make changes to existing
commitments.  As to the approach to be followed, Mexico felt that commitments of a Member should
be consolidated in a single document by the Secretariat.  The seminar proposed should be organized
as soon as possible and avoid clashes with other meetings.  Concerning JOB(02)/88, his delegation
welcomed the editorial conventions, but further consideration and clarification were needed in relation
to other elements.  For instance, paragraph 7 noted that Members could indicate the relationship
between existing commitments and the revised offer.  However, this should be left to collective
decision to ensure a coordinated approach and avoid confusion.
35. The representative of the European Communities confirmed support for a single consolidated
schedule for each Member at the end of the negotiations.  The Communities would consolidate the
relevant schedules itself.  While supporting a consolidated schedule, some delegations had expressed
preference for ensuring continued recourse to old commitments; however, it was difficult to see the
need for that.  The EC understood that the consolidated schedule would upon its entry into force
supersede the preceding schedules and that it would be up to Members to avoid any errors that wouldundermine pre-existing commitments.  Concerning Job(02)/88, the EC had not yet developed its
position. The issue required further discussion.  The envisaged seminar should be held as soon as
possible.
36. The representative of Australia favoured a single consolidated schedule for each Member.  He
requested clarification as to whether the Secretariat would make the schedules in WORD format
available for consolidation by Members or whether it would also do the consolidation.  His delegation
was flexible as to the format of a seminar, but st rongly favoured having it back-to-back to services
meetings.  More time was needed to examine document JOB(02)/88.  It would be helpful to have all
documents at least one week in advance of a meeting if in-depth discussions were envisaged.
37. The representative of Senegal supported a consolidation or replacement approach and an early
decision.  The actual work of consolidation should be started by the Secretariat as soon as possible.S/CSC/M/24
Page 8
The draft consolidated schedules should be made available to all Members for transparency purposes.
As to JOB(02)/88, he found the editorial conventions useful and consistent with current practices.
The idea of a seminar was welcomed, and he suggested that the Secretariat inquire about the
possibility of WTO financing the attendance of capital-based representatives.
38. The representative of Ghana expressed preference for the consolidation approach.  The
Secretariat should do the necessary work for interested Members.  The envisaged seminar should be
held back-to-back to services meetings.
39.  In responding to Brazil's intervention, the representative of the United States wondered
whether the CSC was the appropriate forum to discuss non-technical issues.  The suggestion made
was inconsistent with Article XIX and the mandate for the ongoing negotiations.  The suggested
approach could be tantamount to an invitation to revise commitments downwards in the ongoing
negotiations.  The point made by Mexico on Article XXI procedures was appropriate;  Brazil'ssuggested approach would appear to undermine these procedures.  The mandates of the extended
negotiations did not support Brazil's position.  Rather, these were exceptional cases and not the rule in
WTO negotiations.  All Members would need to agree on the proposed approach, but the United
States were not prepared to join.
40. The representative of China expressed support for the consolidation approach as it provided
for greater transparency and legal certainty of commitments.  She also preferred a replacement
approach over the accumulation approach.  She concurred that existing commitments should not be
undermined in the consolidation process.  This could be ensured if all previous schedules were
annexed to the consolidated version for ease of reference in cases of doubts or conflicts On
JOB(02)/88, she noted that it was not only desirable but necessary, for a Member to verify itsconsolidated schedule upon receipt from the Secretariat before introducing any changes she shared the
views on the proposed seminar already expressed by other delegations.
41. The representative of India welcomed the proposed seminar which should be held as soon as
possible.  At a later stage, his delegation would like to revert to the legal status of existing
commitments and the need for a verification process.
42. The representative of Canada considered Brazil's intervention to be thought-provoking,
although many elements were difficult to accept and without basis in the mandate for the ongoing
negotiations.  Article XXI was applicable whether or not Members were in a negotiating context.
43. The representative of Brazil felt that there might have been a misunderstanding.  He had not
suggested that Article XXI could not be invoked, but highlighted possible uncertainties in that
context.  He would be pleased to provide clarifications to interested delegation, on a bilateral basis.
44. In relation to the timing of the seminar, a representative of the Secretariat said that, while all
possible efforts would be made to avoid clashes with other events, it was also necessary to organize it
back-to-back with services meetings.  The Secretar iat would look into the possibility of funding the
participation of capital-based officials and report back at the next meeting.  The editorial conventions
were meant to be used by delegations to indicate the changes offered on the basis of a clean draft
consolidated schedule prepared by the Secretariat.  Paragraph 7 of JOB(02)/88 was intended tosuggest that the best way to produce a clear document was to use common editorial conventions to
describe the differences between existing commitments and the offer under negotiation at a given
time.  If the editorial conventions were used to sh ow layers of revisions as the negotiations proceeded,
this would be extremely confusing.  The question of verifying the schedules that would be
consolidated by Members themselves was an issue for Members to decide.  The draft consolidatedschedules produced by the Secretariat would be circulated electronically to all delegations.  Members
producing their own consolidated schedules could do likewise, if felt appropriate, to give the
opportunity for verification prior to the introduction of any changes as initial offer.  As to the
technical refinements given as an example, these were intended to cover situations in which aS/CSC/M/24
Page 9
Member in submitting its initial offer would also  like to indicate technical changes to existing
commitments.  The idea was that the proposed editorial conventions could be used to make additions
or deletions of a technical nature, including corrections of erroneous entries, superfluous language, or
typos.
45. The representative of Canada suggested that the Chair hold informal consultations on this
agenda item in September.  Regarding the organization of the seminar, she pointed out possible
constraints if it was held in 2002, she understood there was an expectation that such activities be
reflected in the Technical Assist ance Plan to qualify for funding.
46. The Chairperson observed that there seemed to be concensus to instruct the Secretariat to do
the consolidation for all Members except those that wished to do it themselves.  More discussion was
necessary  on other issues relating to the consolidation approach and the procedural details contained
in JOB(02)/88.  In relation to the seminar, the Secretariat would do the preparatory work and report tothe Committee in due course.  He proposed that the Committee instruct the Secretariat to prepare
consolidated schedules for all but those Members that indicate otherwise by 31 July 2002.
47. The Committee so decided.
2. Approaches to the scheduling of additional commitments under Article XVIII of the
GATS
48. Discussion under this item was postponed to the following meeting.
C. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
49. The Chairperson proposed that, in accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of
subsidiary bodies close to those of the Council for Trade in Services, the next meeting be held during
the week before the formal council meeting in October for Trade in Services.
50. The Committee so agreed.
D. OTHER BUSINESS
51. No points were raised under other business.
__________