RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
19 December  2023 
(23-8691) Page: 1/16 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
8 December  2023  Original: English  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 8 DECEMBER  2023 
Chairperson: H.E. Ms Usha Dwarka -Canabady  (Mauritius), Facilitator of the  
E-commerce Work Programme and the Moratorium  
1.1.  The Chairperson  welcome d delegations  to the last Dedicated Discussion of the year. As 
indicated in the convening notice ( ICN/GC/14 ), the focus of the meeting was to continue the 
preparations for MC13 , specifically, to start considering textual drafts of what Members would want 
to see captured in a Ministerial decision. In that regard, she had encouraged delegations to submit 
texts and to come prepared to engage in discussions. She wa s pleased to note that since the 
convening notice, t hree draft decisions ha d been circulated , namely , one by a group of 
21 delegations, under the coordination of Switzerland and Canada ( WT/GC/W/909 ); the second by 
the delegation of South Africa ( WT/GC/W/911 ); and the third one by Samoa on behalf of the 
ACP Group , which had just been received and had been made available in the room.1  
1.2.  She drew  Members' attention to the communications from t he LDC Group in document 
WT/GC/W/905 , from India and South Africa in document WT/GC/W/902/Rev.1 , and from 
South  Africa in WT/GC/910 , noting that all  the issues raised therein undoubtedly had merit.  
Discussions on thematic issues ha d concluded , as per Members' agreement at the start of the year , 
and Members were now focused on finding language for consideration for a Ministerial decision . 
Therefore,  the Chairperson said that she r emain ed guided by Members as to whether there should 
be special sessio ns to discuss these papers or  whether they could be discussed at a  later stage . She 
added that any Member was free to propose language for a Ministerial decision based on their 
perspectives. Should there be anything specific in these papers that the propon ents would wish to 
see reflected in a potential draft ministerial decision, they were welcome to do so by way of specific 
textual language. As indicated by many, it would be useful to keep the draft short and succinct.   
1.3.  She noted that, t o facilitate the co nsideration of submissions, the Secretariat ha d updated the 
list of communications received since 1998 ( RD/GC/24/Rev.2 ). She also encourage d delegations to 
refer to the minutes of the meetings. The minutes of the November Dedicated Discussion ha d been 
issued in document WT/GC/WP EC/M/10 . Further to that meeting, the joint OECD, IMF, UNCTAD, 
World Bank and WTO study , Digital Trade for Development , had been  launched the previous day 
during UNCTAD eWeek. The report was available on the WTO website.2 Returning to the focus of the 
meeting , she suggested listen ing to the introduction of the draft decisions and open the floor 
thereafter.  
1.4.  The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.5.  Following your call to submit in advance draft text proposals to help focus the discussion, we 
are delighted to present today 's communication , WT/GC/W/909 , on the Work Programme and 
Moratorium on Electronic Commerce. I am making this statement on behalf of the following Members 
who are co -sponsors of t his document: Australia; Canada; Chile; Costa Rica; Georgia; Hong Kong, 
China; Iceland; Israel; Korea; Liechtenstein; Moldova; Montenegro; Norway; New Zealand; 
Paraguay; Peru; Singapore; Switzerland; Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
 
1 This was subsequently circulated in WT/GC/W/916 .  
2 https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/dtd2023_e.htm . WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 2 - 
 
  and Matsu; Ukraine ; and United Kingdom, as well as Qatar and North Macedonia who have confirmed 
their co -sponsorship this week.  The proposal intends to capture the progress accomplished since 
MC12 and aims to continue work under the e -commerce Work Programme and extend the 
e-commerce moratorium until the next Ministerial Conference.   
1.6.  Under the Dedicated Discussions, Members held a series of fruitful exchanges based on 
communications, presentations and interventions. We welcome these exchanges that allowed 
Members to review a broad range of topics and contributed to the marked increase in engagement 
under t he Work Programme. The issues ranged from the challenges developing countries and LDC s 
are facing to harness the full potential of digital trade, to exchanges on best practices in fields like 
consumer protection to regulatory frameworks, while also deepeni ng understanding of the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.  In order to build on the review of topics 
and to ensure ongoing positive engagement in the Work Programme, we call to focus our discussions. 
Selecting a set of specific trade -related issues will allow delegations to address issues of particular 
importance to Members in more depth and dedicate their resources more effectively. The present 
communication therefore invites Ministers to: "instruct the G eneral Council  to identify an d focus its 
work on a set of trade -related topics brought forward by Members, building on its work undertaken 
during the Dedicated Discussions ". 
1.7.  On the e -commerce moratorium, we consider that this multilateral decision plays an important 
role in the increasing digitalization of cross -border trade.  There is a growing body of evidence 
supporting the importance of not applying customs duties. The bottom line coming out of the vast 
majority of these studies is that not applying customs duties benefits bus inesses in all Member 
countries  – LDCs, developing, and developed  – particularly for micro, small, medium -sized 
enterprises (MSMEs), which are the lifeblood of the global economy. Hence, we are comforted in the 
view that continuing to provide to each other  the guarantee to not impose customs duties on 
electronic transmissions is the right path to follow. We strongly believe that the lapse of the 
moratorium would degrade the international regulatory framework for digital trade, thereby causing 
significant un certainty and unpredictability to the global economy , given  that an increasing 
proportion of trade is digital.  We would welcome further support from other Members to this draft 
decision and are looking forward to the discussion . 
1.8.  The representative of South  Africa  delivered the following statement:  
1.9.  We have based the draft Ministerial decision in WT/GC/W/ 911 on various factors including the 
discussions at MC12 and South Africa 's recently concluded market inquiry into online mediation 
platforms. The submission in WT/GC/W/ 910 synthesises elements that in our view can contribute to 
the W ork Programme on Electronic Commerce . In particular, our submission share s practical 
examples on how the dominance of global tech firms and other features of these markets are 
under mining digital industrialisation in developing countries. This is causing growing global inequity 
and condemning developing countries to be mere customers and not participants in the digital 
economy. Moreover, it is evident that the moratorium both facilit ates and exacerbates this outcome 
in numerous ways. For the stability of the global trading system, it is important to find a path to 
more inclusive digital industrialisation.   
1.10.  The moratorium  on electronic transmissions  facilitates and exacerbates market power and 
inequity in digital industrialisation . An end to that moratorium would provide developing countries 
with an important lever to promote domestic digital industrialisation and enhance competition in 
many of these  markets to the ultimate benefit of consumers. Tariffs have always been an important 
part of the overall toolkit of policymakers to promote industrialisation, and it is evident that this is 
equally true of digital  markets.  While the moratorium on electroni c transmissions  is facilitating and 
exacerbating the dependency of developing countries as consumers rather than  participants, it is 
also taking an important policy tool away from the governments which can be used to provide a 
level playing field to their SMEs in the digital sector vis-a-vis the digital giants. Tariffs on electronic 
transmissions  will not only allow governments an opportunity to promote domestic digital 
industrialization but will also provide finance for it as this is a rapidly growing reve nue stream of the 
future.  There are practices by global tech companies that may abuse the moratorium on electronic 
transmissions and distort trade flows, such as transacting through low tax countries or the use of 
anti-steering, which could either be the s ubject of trade rules or tariff adjustments to offset those 
practices, similar to anti -dumping in the trade of goods.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.11.  The draft d ecision in the WT/GC/W/911  text moves away from generalities and proposes 
tangible actions to be pursued under the WPEC. These include:  
• The establishment of a Fund that accepts voluntary contributions from developed countries 
and developing  countries in a position to do so to provide developing countries including 
LDC Members with targeted support to address the digital divide and  promote investments 
in developing domestic SME platforms in developing countries; and  
• Agreement that all leading platforms must promote greater levels of participation and 
promotion of historically disadvantaged SMEs on digital infrastructure through amo ng 
others, funding via fee rebates for onboarding and subscription, and ad credits or targeted 
promotions and to improve the visibility of developing countries including LDCs apps 
through a local app curation and provision of ad credits, as well as through  promoting 
technology transfer.  
1.12.  Finally , my delegation has read the WT/GC/W/ 909 document with interest. This document 
contains some elements that we agree with. We are open to discussion with proponents and all 
Members with the view to reaching a consensus  text. 
1.13.  The Chairperson  noted that the representative of the ACP Group was not available to introduce 
their paper.  
1.14.  The representative of Argentina  delivered the following statement:  
1.15.  First of all, Argentina would like to thank the Members who presented documents 
WT/GC/W/909 , WT/GC/W/ 910 and WT/GC/W/911  and the ACP Group for the document made 
available in the room.  Second, as we have already stated on previous occasions, Argentina suppor ts 
continuation and revitalization of the Work Programme, it being understood that it is the best forum 
for dealing with e -commerce -related issues and achieving consensus on a multilateral basis, 
consistent with Argentina's position of strengthening multil ateralism at all levels in all spheres. 
Argentina has stated on previous occasions its position on the renewal of the moratorium on customs 
duties on electronic transmissions, which was explained in detail during our intervention at the 
meeting under  this Work Programme on 18 July this year. Therefore, we refer to our position outlined 
in the minutes of that meeting, contained in document WT/GC/WPEC/M/7 . 
1.16.  Madam Ambassador, the two proposals of Ministerial decision that were presented to this 
meeting are  still under consideration by our authorities. We thank other Members for their 
observations . We will take note and convey the gist of these discussions so that they can feed into 
our consideration of the proposals in capital. Lastly, we wish to reiterate Argentina's commitment to 
continue participating in a constructive manner in these discussions with a view to achieving a 
consensual text that is acceptable to all Members.  
1.17.  The Chairperson  asked Members to focus on the documents on the table and share any 
specific views they might have, i.e., whether there was anything in those drafts that they 
fundamentally disagreed with or whether  there was language they could live with.  
1.18.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following 
statement:  
1.19.  Let me start with some observations on the submission in WT/GC/W/909 . Thanks very much 
for the draft decision and , for full disclosure , we have had some discussion , as the CARICOM Group , 
with the representatives of the co-sponsors of t his particular draft a nd have explained a number of 
elements that I w ill mention today. In terms of the introductory paragraph , we did indicate that we 
had some reservations about the particular phrase "have led to the reinvigoration " that suggests 
that reinvigoration has already been achieved. For us, t here has been a marked improvement  under 
your stewardship , Madam Facilitator, in the form of consistent and regular engagement under the 
Work Programme . However,  we do  not think what we have done thus far ha s yet achieved the 
reinvigoration that we would  seek, though this is a very promising start.  Similarly, the phrase 
"uphold th is elevated level of engagement " gives us pause for the same reasons. It would be  
important to balance our somewhat academic and  conceptual engagement with a greater emphasis 
on practical, identifiable and beneficial outcomes. The emphasis should be on making the Work WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Programme work for developing countries. So , I think with some tweaks we could live with that 
introduct ory paragraph . 
1.20.   Regarding paragraph 1.1 , this preambular paragraph, which speaks to the basis for the 
ensuing agreements and instructions, requires balancing. This framing of the ensuing operative 
paragraphs as being with the aim of maintaining certainty a nd predictability for business and 
consumers suggests a singular focus on the moratorium. We think inclusion of a reference in 
paragraph 1.1 to the importance of the Work Programme and its development dimension would 
strike a better balance.  On paragraph 1.2, We would prefer a verb with more weight than "continue ", 
such as "intensify " or "deepen ". This is because we would not want to simply continue as we have 
been doing, given our concern about the current approach and whether it is in fact – beyond earnes t 
engagement – yielding the outcomes we wish to see. O n the  instruction to the General Council to  
"identify and focus its work on a set of trade -related topics brought forward by Members ", 
notwithstanding recognition of the value that could be derived from  more-focused approaches, we 
would prefer a formulation that does not suggest limits on what trade -related topics Members could 
bring forward during the period in question.  
1.21.  The representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines , on behalf of OECS , delivered  the 
following statement:  
1.22.  I want to indicate that the ACP Group coordinator has asked us to convey  that Members can 
take note of the submission  for now and they would wish to have an opportunity to present it at the 
next meeting and have a more substantive discussion. I want to start by aligning with the comments 
by Trinidad and Tobago , on behalf of the CARICOM Group. I ma ke this intervention on behalf of the  
Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) . I want to thank all of the Members which have 
made proposals contained in document WT/GC/W/909  and document WT/GC/W/911 . I also want to 
thank Canada and Switzerland for the extent to which they sought to soci alise the document 
WT/GC/W/ 909. We had some productive exchanges,  and we certainly  want to acknowledge that . 
Unfortunately,  we have not had that level of discussion with the delegation of South Africa yet.  
1.23.  I will start commenting on document WT/GC/W/ 909. We want to note that on paragraph 1.1 , 
we can accept some of the language , but with some modifications. Trinidad and Tobago  made a very 
good point that references to "certainty and predictability for businesses and consumers " are terms 
we would normally associate with the moratorium . If the co-sponsors c ould consider ending the 
paragraph at "predictability ", that could help take care of that impression . We are broadly supportive 
of paragraph 1.2 . I believe it seems reasonable enough. However,  the absence of any reference to 
the development dimension is of concern to us  and, once again , this is an area where perhaps there 
can be some modifications  by the co-sponsors . It is highly unlikely that OECS Members would 
subscribe to an outcome or decision that does not explicitly reference the development dimension, 
which is a very important aspect of the work that we are doing . Paragraph 1.3 is a bit too prescriptive 
in terms of the frequency and exactly what it is proposing , and perhaps "periodic updates " might 
suffice without necessarily getting so detailed as to when those should take place.  On paragraph  1.4, 
we support the renewal of the moratorium. However, we also believe that any renewal of the 
moratorium should also be circumscribed by a further com mitment to hold discussions and we should 
be mandated , as Members , to engage in further work to clarify the scope, definition  and impact of 
the moratorium. I think that is very important and so an additional set of considerations can be 
contemplated there . 
1.24.  I will now turn to the proposal, which was so eloquently presented by South Africa. 
Paragraph  1 of document WT/GC/W/911  is a significant point of departure in terms of where our 
position is at the moment , because we certainly believe that the moratorium should be renewed. 
So, I hop e that there will be some reconsideration on the part of the proponent with respect to this.  
I have had some discussions with some other  Members as well, and there were some concerns 
because technically if it is not renewed then it automatically lapses. So, we would like to seek a 
clarification in terms of whether reference to its termination here  is intended to put to rest indefinitely 
the question of the moratorium . The moratorium would automatically lapse should there be no 
decision , so the Ministers do not need to take a decision to terminate the moratorium . So, some 
clarification on that point woul d be appreciated. However, it is not a proposition that we agree with , 
and we look forward to having a constructive dialogue with the proponent  on that. We certainly 
agree with paragraph 2 in terms of further agreeing to reinvigorate the work under the Work 
Programme and  we see that the proposal makes  reference to the development dimension in this 
regard, and that  is something that we support . In paragraph 3 , we have no major difficulty . On WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 5 - 
 
  paragraph 4, while we would not in principle  have a problem with  this, we would certainly want to 
have some additional conversations around th e concept of a fund . This is really hitting at the core 
of what we perceive to be the WTO's mandate with respect to electronic commerce and we  would 
have to have discussions in t erms of the suitability of the WTO for such a funding mechanism  and 
the role of other organi zations in this regard. We are not opposed to it, but we think it can benefit 
from additional conversations . On paragraph 5, we have no major difficulties with it. Overall, we 
look forward to further exchanges with you on the entirety of the proposal.  
1.25.  The representative of Ukraine  delivered the following statement:  
1.26.  Ukraine would like to add its voice of support for the document WT/GC/W/909  regarding the 
Work Program me and Moratorium on Electronic Commerce, which we co -sponsored.  We commend 
the progress achieved by the Members since MC12 and  the work done under the e -commerce Work 
Programme and would like to emphasize the necessity to continue the dedicated discussion s with a 
focus on trade -related topics brought forward by Members.  Ukraine 's position on the moratorium is 
known. We remain a strong supporter of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions since we believe the longstanding practice of application of this moratorium has 
significantly contributed to the engagement  of MSMEs in cross -border e -commerce. In our trade 
practice, Ukraine has already committed not to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions 
under several FTAs.  In conclusion, we would like to express our appreciation to the co -sponsors for 
taking the initiative and tabling this communication. We encourage the WTO Members to engage 
constructively on these important issues.  
1.27.  The representative of the Philippines  delivered the following statement:  
1.28.  Thank you , Chair, for your continued guidance on these d iscussions. We wanted to share our 
quick thoughts on the elements of the language in the proposals  – not on specific paragraphs but in 
general. The Philippines can support highlighting the development dimension in the continued 
revitalization of the Work P rogramme.  We can also support continuing the evidence -based and deep 
discussions on the scope, definition and impact of the moratorium. We have seen in our Dedicated 
Discussions that the sharing of experiences has been productive and has facilitated the 
understanding of the moratorium and best practices and innovative strategies of Members in the 
topic of broader digital trade. We see value in continuously filling the structured work under the 
Work Programme in this manner.  We also thank the group of 21 Mem bers, South Africa, and the 
ACP Group  for their proposals. We are reviewing them, so these are our initial comments.  
1.29.  The representative of India delivered the following statement:   
1.30.  Chair, we thank you for convening this meeting  and for your efforts to stee r this issue as we 
approach MC13. There are four points that I would like to make . Firstly, let me comment on the 
issue of the moratorium on customs duties on e -commerce. We reiterate that a discussion on the 
scope and the definition of this moratorium is imperative. While the paper WT/GC/W/ 889 submitted 
by the proponents of the moratorium talked about the apparent benefits of the moratorium, it still 
skirted around the scope and the definition issue.  Secondly, we welcome the paper WT/GC/W/910  
presented by South Africa which describes the findings and observations of the Competition 
Commission of South Africa. The paper goes in great detail on how CCSA found the outsized 
advantage enjoyed by large global techn ology players which hampers the growth of digitalization 
especially for smaller players in the local market. This paper which is very specific to the South 
African studies is a good complement and addition to the paper WT/GC/W/902/Rev.1  presente d 
earlier by India and South Africa.  Thirdly, on the paper WT/GC/W/911  submitted by South Africa as 
a ministerial decision for MC13, the paper is currently being studied by our Delhi -based colleagues.  
Fourthly, we take note of the report Digital Trade for D evelopment  co-authored by IMF, OECD, 
UNCTAD, World Bank Group and the WTO under their own responsibility. Since the report was only 
released yesterday, we are still studying the contents. We will be commenting on this report in detail 
and offer our reactio ns at a later time.   
1.31.  On the language in WT/GC/W/909 , on paragraph 1.1, we would prefer the previous practice 
of starting the introduction with a simple "We propose that the Ministerial Conference adopts". On 
paragraph 1.2, we agree that the development dim ension should feature here and that the mandate 
was for the General Council and other WTO bodies. So , we would prefer to have this reflected. On 
paragraph 1.3, I agree with previous speakers that some of this is very prescriptive. Since the WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 6 - 
 
  discussions sho uld ideally be held in multiple WTO bodies, not just the General Council, a stocktake 
could be done depending on how Members feel the discussion has evolved. On paragraph 1.4, I have 
already commented.  
1.32.  The representative of Switzerland  delivered the follo wing statement:  
1.33.  This is  simply to react to a few  interventions today. First, we  would  like to thank Members 
who have studied  our proposal for a draft Ministerial decision . Hearing from  different interventions, 
notably b y CARICOM and the OECS , we stand ready to consider the comments that have been shared 
with us , bilaterally and also today . I think we are quite happy to accommodate most of them. I would 
provide a few comments . On paragraph 1.2, the idea is that , after the  tour-de-tables that we ha d 
this year under the Dedicated Discussion , which we felt were very useful to get a first impression on 
where the focus  and the priority  of different Members are , we feel that it might be a better use of 
our time , looking at the next phase , to try to selec t a few issues and dive a little bit deeper. We are 
open to discussing which topics th ese should be, but thinking  on how to get to the next level, we 
feel that spending more time on a dedicated topic, bringing in the expertise of specialise d 
international organi zations or academia would allow to pin  better what the issue is , what the 
challenges are , what exists in terms of possible support. Looking at the proposal by the ACP Group, 
and we would like to thank the m for their draft proposal , this is something we would be very keen 
in discussing to see how Members would like  to focus our work  going ahead .  
1.34.  On paragraph 1.3, we are open not to mention specific dates. We thought mentioning specific 
dates would provide some  guarantee that the G eneral Council would  be reviewing the work. We are 
equally comfortable  not to mention these date s and reacting then  on an ad hoc  basis, depending on 
how fast work has evolved . On the moratorium, Switzerland support s its extension. We believe that 
the recent studies , notably by the  OECD and also the IMF , have had  interesting insights on the 
benefits of the moratorium, looking at the effect on the broader economy of a lapse of the 
moratorium. We  will also be studying with interest the  joint report that was published yes terday by 
the five international organizations. We are very open to work with interested delegations to try to 
bring our different proposals  closer . 
1.35.  The representative of Pakistan  delivered the following statement:  
1.36.  I will comment on both papers  presented by Canada and South Africa. Firstly, I will be making 
a comprehensive statement covering all aspects of the paper presented by Canada  (WT/GC/W/909 ). 
I would like to thank Canada and other co -sponsors for the presentation of their paper. We would 
like to make  the following comments on the approach and the contents of the communication.  The 
introductory para graph  refers to "extensive exchanges  […] that ha ve led to the reinvigoration of the 
Work Program me". While we are appreciative of the work done u nder the Work Programme,  these 
discussions have remained discussions only, and nothing meaningful has evolved that could address 
the structural challenges of the oligopolistic practices in the digital economy . Therefore, our concerns 
have only deepened on the effectiveness of these discussions in parallel to the existence of the 
moratorium. It is also discouraging to note that we have not seen any consensus recommendations 
from the subsidiary bodies to the G eneral Council  to demonstrate any multilateral com mitment on 
the development aspect of e -commerce.  
1.37.  A second important reference in the introductory par agraph  is about "evidence -based 
exchanges ". We feel that there is a complete disconnect in understanding the goal of our discussions 
under the Work Program me. From the perspective of developing countries and LDCs, science -based 
evidence is required t o demonstrate how developing countries are benefitting from the moratorium 
and what we get in return is a demonstration of how the mercantilist approach to the digital economy 
has contributed to the strengthening of domestic digital industries in developed countries while their 
governments continue to raise huge revenues in the process.  It is unfortunate that , even after 
25 years, we have still not agreed to the basic question of what we understand by electronic 
transmission s and what actually is the scope. Our understanding of the issue on scope resonates 
with Indonesia 's submission contained in WT/MIN(17)/68 . 
1.38.  Paragraph 1.1 of the submission  WT/GC/W/909  emphasizes "maintaining certainty and 
predictability ", but it contradicts the understanding that the last moratorium extension agreed upon 
during MC12 negotiations was a one -time event. In fact, it was made very clear in the green room 
and in small group neg otiations on the MC12 text amongst Ministers that this would be the last time WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the moratorium would be extended. Turning to Paragraph 1.2 , we would like to clarify that the 
reference to focusing on "trade-related topics brought forward by Members " is an amb iguous term 
and risks altering the 1998 -established issues. It  is crucial to limit the scope of topics for examination 
that fall within the WTO legal framework and the scope of existing Agreements based on Members' 
proposals.  We are supportive of the conti nuation of work under the Work Program me with a possible 
end date and prioritizing some issues or topic s, as we believe that such discussions ensure that 
issues are thoroughly examined in relevant bodies before reaching the General Council. However, 
the su ggested way forward provided under Paragraph 1.4 is deemed disagreeable.  
1.39.  Let me now turn to the submission by South Africa in document WT/GC/W/911 . We would 
like to thank South Africa for its submission and presentation, and we are broadly aligned with the 
concept s presented in the submission.  The issue of e-commerce and digital trade is closely 
intertwined to the issue of development and therefore, we believe that it must be pursued in an 
inclusive manner otherwise it has the potential to only worsen the existing imbalances in global trade 
and their spill over  effects.  As more goods are transmitted electronically, the loss of customs duties 
and the foreclosure of policy space to use tariffs to  promote domestic digital industrialization are 
important development considerations that many Members have been contemplating. To answer the 
question about the scope and coverage of the moratorium, there is a lack of data and transparency 
around the trade  flows taking place through electronic transmissions. More needs to be done to 
understand the trading environment in which transactions take place through electronic 
transmissions. We are concerned by the growing digital and technological divide among Members 
that has resulted in the uneven spread of global electronic commerce and inequitable gains from the 
growing digitalisation of the global economy.  
1.40.  As we move closer to MC13, we are confident that the practice of the extension of the 
moratorium will not continue in line with the understanding that Ministers had at MC12 and we will 
continue the practice of engaging constructively in our work under the Work Programme , including 
the development -related issues under it with a tentative dea dline to complete these discussions with 
concrete recommendations notably on improving transparency on the volume of electronic 
transmissions flows including Internet traffic data specifying the origin and destination.  
1.41.  The representative of Trinidad and T obago , on behalf of CARICOM , delivered the following 
statement:   
1.42.  I just wanted to continue with the observations on the submission presented by Canada  in 
document WT/GC/W/909 . In paragraph  1.3, we join others who  noted  that a less prescriptive 
approach to t he reviews could be useful, but there  is some flexibility on that particular point. We 
also wish to state clearly that we support the inclusion of paragraph 1.4 relating to the temporary 
renewal of the moratorium . We also wish to add two general comments. One is that the draft is 
silent on the question of engagement  on the subject of the moratorium post -MC13, and we wonder 
whether that  is a deliberate  or inadvertent omission . The second  broad comment is that we have 
difficult y with the  absence of a mention in the draft of the development dimension . For us, the 
development dimension is fundamentally important  and integral to the Work Programme,  and it 
would be a critical inclusion in a Ministerial decision. In fact, for us , this inclusio n is indispensable . 
This is a sentiment that we  have already shared with the co-sponsors  of this proposal . 
1.43.  I now wish to make a few very preliminary comments on the document introduced by South 
Africa (WT/GC/W/911 ). Broadly speaking, we join others who pre fer a more concise  approach to the 
drafting of the decision , but we  appreciate that the elements outlined  in the submission are of 
importance to the delegation in question . On the preambular paragraph s, we share the concern 
expressed regarding the need to address the digital divide affecting developing countries and L DCs. 
There are some elements on which we  are still reflecting , for example , the reference to inequities 
and inequalities in the global e -commerce arena. We do note that this is something on which the 
South African delegation has spoken in the context of our previous discussions. We note the framing 
in the text of the question of the moratorium, particularly as it relates to competit ion, taxation and 
digital industrialization, and we also note the observations made with respect to global platforms 
and pertinent  implications of tax revenue for developing countries. We continue to reflect on the 
argument that the moratorium has a delete rious impact on options for tax revenue  for developing 
countries to be channelled towards digital industrialisation efforts . We share the views  outlined 
relating to the importance of the Work Programme, especially as relates to the development 
dimension.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.44.  On the operative paragraph s, we are not in a position to agree to the termination of the 
moratorium , but paragraph 2 contains key elements for our Group. We also agree with the emphasis 
on the delivery of concrete outcomes , and I believe  the colleague from  Pakistan made some points 
in that regard , especially as it points to practical way s in which the WTO Membership could contribute 
more practically and frontally to addressing the digital divide that affects the meaningful engagement 
of developing countries  and LDCs in global e -commerce. Finally , on paragraph 5, we wonder about 
the extent to which such a decision could in fact be taken by our Ministers. We would welcome 
perspectives and clarification on this point. It feels a bit prescriptive and granular fo r a Ministerial 
decision within this context, but we would be keen to hear what the South African delegation would 
have to say on that point.   
1.45.  The representative of Jamaica  delivered the following statement:  
1.46.  Jamaica aligns  itself with the statement delivered by Trinidad and Tobago. I  will just provide 
some comments on some of the elements. I thank the proponents for their submissions. While the 
submissions are being further studied in capital, my delegation will provide some preliminar y 
comments and feedback.  Starting with the submission WT/GC/W/909 , as highlighted by Trinidad 
and Tobago, the issue of the development dimension is critical for Jamaica. We w ould recall the 
recent ly launch ed report  by the IMF, OECD , UNCTAD, World Bank  and WTO. One of the points that 
was raised is that while trade is increasingly becoming digital, some developing countries are 
struggling to be a part of this transformation. It further confirms that digital trade can be an engine 
for economic growth and , in looking to the future work, we must consider how the development 
dimension will be considered  – we would just like to flag that in relation to paragraph  1.2. Moving 
to paragraph 1.3, as highlighted by other delegations, the recommendation as is proposed may be 
a bit too prescriptive and of course we need to give latitude for how the discussions w ould evolve 
and ensure that there is periodic reporting and updates  to the General Council . On paragraph 1.4, 
as raised by Trinidad and Tobago , this is welcome. However, we do consider  that there could be an 
addition of how we could further strengthen our discussion as it relates to the scope, definition and 
impact of the moratorium.  
1.47.  Turning to the submission by South  Africa  – and again, we thank the delegation for its efforts 
in preparing this submission. We do note, for example, at the beginning of the document , that there 
is an emphasis o n the importance of the Work Programme, which of course is important to us. on 
the question of the moratorium , as represented by Trinidad and Tobago, we would appreciate its 
renewal . In paragraph 2, which speaks to the reinvigoration of the Work Programme , this is welcome 
because  it is a reference to development -related issues . On paragraph 4, Saint Vincent & the 
Grenadines ha s raised the question about the fund . I think it could be useful to provide Members 
with further explanation as to how this is envisioned to play out and practically how it would work . 
I also wonder if there is a ny room for synerg ies with  the current e -Trade for All initiative, which 
takes on board the different international organi zations . Chair, you can count on us to continue to 
contribute constructively to this process.  
1.48.  The representative of Indonesia  delivered the following statement:  
1.49.  Indonesia appreciates the submission s from South Africa, Canada and other co -sponsors, and 
the ACP  Group . We are currently in the process of reviewing these submissions and coordinating 
with our capital. South Africa's submission  represents a significant proposal that could potentially 
shape the outcomes of the upcoming MC13. However, a comprehensive understanding  and thorough 
negotiati on process are essential before determining our final position. As we look ahead to MC13, 
Indonesia emphasizes the need for a more pronounced focus on development issues within the 
e-commerce framework. We support the idea of explori ng ways to narrow the digital divide, enhance 
the capabilities of developing countries and LDCs in the digital trade landscape, and foster their 
increased participation in global e -commerce.  On the issue of the moratorium, Indonesia's position 
remains stea dfast. We continue to advocate for a clear agreement on the scope, definition, and 
impact of the moratorium. Until such an agreement is reached, our position will not shift. However, 
we recognize the importance of a comprehensive understanding of the issue . As such, t erminating 
the moratorium could serve as a constructive step, allowing for a more in -depth assessment of its 
real impact based on tangible evidence.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.50.  The representative of China  delivered the following statement:  
1.51.  Like others, we appreciate the papers presented by relevant Members. We are now working 
on them,  and we will come back with more concrete comments. We would like to take this 
opportunity to share our general position. First, we support the moratorium  being extended to the 
next M inisteri al Conference . Second, we support reflect ing the  development dimension in the 
Work Program me in a more concrete manner. Third, we support explor ing further the issues related 
to e-commerce. Fourth, we are open to further discussions on the scope and defini tion of the 
moratorium without setting out preconditions on its extension.  
1.52.  The representative of United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
1.53.  The United Kingdom aligns with the statement made by Canada. We are pleased to co -sponsor 
communication WT/GC/W/909 . We are also pleased to hear from others today and have taken 
careful note of the comments made, in particular those for us as co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/909 . 
I confess I was  not prepared for such an interactive discussion today , but it is really enc ouraging 
that there are now a number of proposals on the table,  and we are engaging on those . Thank you 
very much for your leadership in bringing us to this point, Facilitator. We have heard the growing 
calls from Members  – at all levels of development – to deliver an agreement ahead of MC13. So, w e 
see these communications as an important first step to do just that. On the specific communications, 
we have taken note of communication WT/GC/W/911  from South Africa. Clearly our point of 
departure on the morat orium is very different, but we welcome South Africa 's willingness to engage 
further on the various elements of the communications on the table. We have also taken note of 
today 's communication from the ACP Group  and look forward to hearing further from th em in due 
course.  More broadly, the UK was pleased to attend the launch of the joint IGO Report yesterday. 
This Report joins the growing body of evidence supporting the continuation of the moratorium. We 
believe that this Report will provide a helpful back drop as we continue our work together to find a 
solution ahead of MC13. The UK stands willing to engage with all Members to find a way forward, 
focussing on those areas of convergence , which we think are emerging,  and using the evidence on 
the table.  
1.54.  The representative of Mexico  delivered the following statement:   
1.55.  We thank the proponents of the draft ministerial decision s and the presentations given today 
by Canada and South Africa.  Regarding document WT/GC/W/909 , i.e. the draft ministerial decision 
coordinated by Canada and Switzerland, Mexico considers that the matters included there are crucial 
to continue with Members ' work  under  the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, and to 
maintain the current p ractice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until the 
next Ministerial Conference.  Regarding this draft ministerial decision, right now we do not have 
specific comments about the paragraphs, but we  would  like to share with you that M exico, in order 
to join the 21 proponents, is compiling the opinions of its different competent agencies, mainly on 
the subject of custom s duties. The consultations about the draft decision are being  finalize d. In this 
regard, preliminar ily, we can say tha t Mexico agrees to maintain the current practice of not imposing 
customs duties on electronic transmissions and we join the efforts to reinvigorate the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce.  Our Ministry of Economy and Ministry of Finance, along with 
our tax authorities, are analysing the scenarios presented in the dedicated and informative sessions 
about the moratorium. Therefore, taking this in to account, we may be able to confirm our support 
for this draft decision shortly.  Finally, Mexico would like to take this opportunity to thank the five 
international organizations for issuing  the joint report Digital Trade for Development , which is 
valuable for Mexico as it provides important aspects and data to make decisions regarding the topics 
we are discussing today. Mexico thanks the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for 
Economic Co -operation and Development, the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization for the efforts made to present the 
joint report published yesterday.  
1.56.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  delivered the following statement:  
1.57.  I would like to thank you, Madam Chair , and the Secretariat for your remarkable efforts. 
I would  also like to  thank the Secretariat for circulating the compilation of all the proposals under 
the Work Programme . This is very useful. We would also like to thank the proponents of the three 
proposals. We see value  and are still assessing them  back in capital, but , in a prelimina ry manner , WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Saudi  Arabia would like to share its  position . With regard to the Work Programme , we welcome the 
reinvigoration of the discussions under  the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce,  and we really 
commend the efforts of this group in the ongoing di scussions  and for the workshops held until now, 
which were  very useful . We would like to support extending  the moratorium  until MC14 . Like China , 
we encourage taking into account  the development dimension in the discussions under  the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
1.58.  The representative of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.59.  Thank you, Ambassador, for this opportunity to discuss drafting of the Ministerial decision on 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce that we hope to see agreed at MC13. This is a k ey 
outcome  of the Ministerial Conference in our view . We thank the delegations that have submitted 
the three proposals for draft decisions that help to shap e discussions. The EU is not a co -sponsor of 
any decision at this stage, but it seems to us that the draft decision submitted in WT/GC/W/909  and 
the draft decision proposed by the ACP Group  are good bases for our further work and capture a 
number of element s that seem to be shared by many.  
1.60.  In terms of what the EU seeks to see in the W ork Programme  decision , there are two elements, 
both of which are interconnected and form one decision . The first element is the continuation of 
work under  the Work Programme o n Electronic Commerce.  Here, we are pleased with the 
reinvigoration of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce discussions  that we have had since 
MC12  as mandated by our Ministers . In our view, the discussions on the challenges and opportunities 
of e-commerce are extremely important and valuable, and we are glad to see this opinion shared , 
in particular by many  developing countries.  So, we would support the continuation of regular 
meetings post -MC13, as we have done this year, and go deeper into more specific elements of topics 
discussed so far. These could include addressing the digital  divide, the development of appropriate 
legal and regulatory frameworks that enable electronic commerce, and th e continuation of 
post-MC13 discussions on issues relating to the moratorium, including its coverage and impact, in 
line with Members ' interests and on the basis of evidence. We are open to discuss with Members 
how to best reflect the work that we done thi s year and also post -MC13 in the actual drafting of a 
decision and see the level of details we could usefully include.  The second element is the continuation 
of the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. T he EU strongly  
supports its extension, while maintaining our long -term objective for a more stable solution than 
what we had until now.  
1.61.  Concerning the proposal put forward by South Africa, we strongly disagree with the language 
in relation to the e -commerce moratorium. We question the proposed approach and generally query 
why Members would wish to terminate this key WTO commitment that supports digital economies 
and trade , facilitate s investment, including in developing countries , and support s businesses, in 
particular S MEs, as supported by mounting evidence. One comment on the MC12 decision and its 
meaning, I want to stress that our Ministers have not agreed to terminate the moratorium. The 
decision clearly says that the moratorium would terminate only if not extended at  MC13. This is in 
line with the approach that Members have undertaken since 1998. We would therefore like to invite 
Members not to pre-empt the decisions that our Ministers will seek to take  in Abu Dhabi . We also 
note that there is a significant focus in t he WT/GC/W/911  decision on the role of the large digital 
platforms and their impact on the development of domestic competition. However, the EU queries 
the link made by South Africa between the moratorium and concerns identified by the Competition 
Commissio n of South Africa regarding the large digital platforms. As noted, before, the EU considers 
that the moratorium is very beneficial for all businesses, in particular MSMEs. This is shown by the 
analytical work on the impacts of the moratorium and digital so lutions for MSMEs. In our view , the 
issues identified by South Africa appear to relate rather to concerns that are better addressed by 
(i) the application of domestic rules aiming to ensure competitive markets, and (ii) the application 
of non-discriminatory taxation systems.  The moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions in no way constrains the policy space of Members pursuing the objective of ensuring 
competitive digital markets. This objective is better achieved in other wa ys, than customs duties.  
1.62.  We look forward to achieving a successful outcome on this key Ministerial deliverable that 
reinvigorates the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, with a set of details that we can discuss 
further and  continues the long -establish ed practice of Members of not imposing customs duties on 
electronic transmissions.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.63.  The representative of Brazil  delivered the following statement:  
1.64.  We would like to express appreciation to you , Ambassador,  for your leadership and to you 
and the Secretariat  for all the work done during this year to organize and carry out the dedicated 
discussions of the Work Programme on E lectronic Commerce.  Brazil would also like to thank 
South  Africa and the group of 21 delegations for the presentations and for their respe ctive proposals 
of draft ministerial decisions on the Work Programme. We also take note of the ACP Group 's 
submission.  
1.65.  Brazil considers that the exchange of views and experiences under the dedicated discussions 
focused on the digital divide were a step in the right direction towards implementing the MC12 
mandate of reinvigorating the Work Programme's work in line with its development dimension. 
We are very pleased to have contributed to the exercise by sharing our domestic experience in some 
of the thematic  sessions and we look forward to continuing participating actively in the Work 
Programme discussions.  We would like to continue and deepen discussions under the Work 
Programme, after MC13, on topics of interest brought forward by developing and least devel oped 
Members, such as transfer of technology, competition, and consumer protection, with a view to 
reach concrete outcomes at the following Ministerial Conference,  i.e., MC14. In this regard, we join 
previous speakers in supporting the inclusion of a refer ence to the development dimension in any 
ministerial decision.  In light of the discussions held under the Work Programme and other fora on 
the scope and definition of the moratorium, particularly on its impact on taxation and policy space 
for the promotion  of the digital economy, we are undertaking comprehensive internal consultations 
on these proposals,  and we hope to be able to come back with specific questions and comments in 
the next meetings.  
1.66.  The representative of Chile delivered the following statemen t: 
1.67.  Our delegation supports and co -sponsors the statement made by Canada , since we consider 
that we have already held a series of fruitful exchanges based on communications, presentations 
and statements, and therefore believe we have fulfilled the mandate of revitalizing the Work 
Programme. We join the call to build on the review of t opics and ensure continued constructive 
participation by selecting a set of specific trade -related topics which will allow us to adopt a more 
in-depth approach to important issues.  
1.68.  Regarding the moratorium on impos ing customs duties  on electronic transmiss ions, our 
country stresses the need to maintain it, since in our view, it guarantees legal certainty for the 
private sector, improves the efficiency of digital exports and facilitates investment decisions.  
The moratorium facilitates the participation of sm all and medium -sized enterprises (SMEs), women 
and youth in electronic commerce, offering new opportunities in a stable and non -discriminatory 
framework. We must pursue detailed discussions on whether or not this negatively impacts each 
Member's ability to  collect tax revenue. However, it is necessary to highlight that this discipline does 
not prevent us from establishing internal taxes in our national systems, as long as they do not 
discriminate based on the origin of imported data, which, in our view, is almost impossible, or at 
least very onerous, to determine.  Furthermore, the benefits for exporting companies, especially 
SMEs, outweigh any possible adverse effects. For example, our country benefits from income tax 
paid by exporting companies, thus allowi ng the companies' profits to increase by maintaining low 
trade costs.  Similarly, tariffs could act as a barrier to digital trade, making it difficult for start -ups to 
penetrate new markets or continue exporting to existing ones. This could reduce competiti on, often 
resulting in higher prices and less choice for consumers.  Finally, tariffs could also have a negative 
impact on innovation. If operating costs are too high, companies may have fewer resources to invest 
in research and development. This could slow  the pace of innovation in the technology industry.  
1.69.  Having said that, we also take note of the communication presented by South Africa and hope 
to comment on it in more detail at another opportunity. Therefore, Chile firmly supports renewal of 
the moratori um as a key outcome of the Thirteenth  WTO Ministerial Conference.  
1.70.  The representative of the United States  delivered the following statement:  
1.71.  I have been involved in this Work Programme for over 20 years. It has ebbed and flowed in 
terms of its productive n ature , but under your chairmanship we have had very robust discussions 
on a number of topics,  and it is quite encouraging.  We have welcomed the opportunity to provide WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 12 - 
 
  our contribution to the discussions this year, including on the importance of the morator ium. One of 
the most concrete steps  that WTO Members could take to foster a robust digital economy is to extend 
the moratorium. Our views on this are well known. At MC12 we all agreed to extend the moratorium 
as well as reinvigorate the Work Program me with an aim to explore these issues in an approach 
grounded in evidence  and analysis . Indeed, the Work Program me has generated a vibrant exchange  
of views  among Members and provoked many international organizations to produce a number of 
important studies rega rding the moratorium and its potential impact on development. Digital trade 
is quickly evolving,  and it is important to continue to examine these issues in a Work Program me 
post-MC13. It would be premature and potentially costly to developing countries to end the 
moratorium at this stage.  
1.72.  There are two decisions before us to consider  and we w elcome the recent ACP proposal.  The 
proposal by Canada and others supporting the Work Program me and the extension of the 
moratorium is consistent with the U S position , whereas the South Africa proposal introduces a 
number of  new issues and draws conclusions that have not been examined or agreed to by Members. 
So, we see the draft decision in WT/GC/W/909  as a firm basis to work from. Once again, we are 
open to i ncluding more concrete ideas on the development dimension.  We want to thank South  Africa 
for its communication on Challenges for Digital Industrialization in Developing Countries . We are still 
reviewing it in capital,  and it raises a number of issues that have yet to be fully examined and 
therefore might be worth exploring in more depth in the future depending upon how the 
Work Program me and moratorium are advanced at MC13.   
1.73.  The representative of Japan  delivered the following statement:  
1.74.  Japan commends the Facilitator for her leadership in the discussions under the W ork 
Programme on electronic Commerce. We thank the proponents of WT/GC/W/909 , South Africa and 
the ACP Group  for the circulation of their proposals on the draft Ministerial declaration s on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce. Looking ahead to MC13, it  is a good time for us to discuss the 
draft Ministerial declaration.  We have a couple of comments on the dr aft decision s. 
On WT/GC/W/909 , during the past dedicated discussion s, we have discussed many topics, including 
the moratorium on customs duties. We had a good opportunity to hear about the challenges that 
developing Members and LDC Members have. Many Membe rs voluntarily submitted communications 
or proposals for each session, and we are satisfied with the level of Members ' engagement. Given 
this, we believe that the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce has been successfully 
reinvigorated so far, and the pre ambular language in WT/GC/W/909  seems to be broadly aligned 
with our recognition, but we are open to hear views on this point from other Members.  
1.75.  From Japan 's perspective, we should aim at making the moratorium permanent or at least 
extend the moratorium at MC13, as well as continu ing discussion s under  the Work Programme in 
the Dedicated Discussion format, focusing on the WTO 's core competence, including trade -related 
topics. For this reason, even though Japan is not a proponent, we can positively consider  
WT/GC/W/909  as a whole. We see similar sense in the ACP Group 's draft decision . We also believe 
that the language of a Ministerial decision should be succinct, so that we c an get to an agreement 
in a timely manner.  
1.76.  Turning to WT/GC/W/911 , we are still looking into this draft, but we see a number of new and 
unfamiliar elements in particular in para graph  4 and para graph  5, including the concept of a Fund, 
which we have not yet fully discussed. Our view is that the agreement at MC13  should be on the 
extension of the previous discussions, and we are concerned about including such completely new 
items in the Ministerial decision at MC13. Also, we cannot support paragraph 1. 
1.77.  The representative of Costa Rica  delivered the following state ment:   
1.78.  First of all, I  would like to thank you very much , Madam Facilitator,  for the work that you  are 
doing and that you  have been doing this year . Costa  Rica would like to endorse Canada 's statement. 
We are one of the core proponents of the document WT/GC/W/909  and we would like to highlight 
some of the points that Costa Rica particularly supports in this proposal. We feel that we have had 
quite an enriching debate throughout and under your leadership. There have been presentations 
made by many Members and international organi zations  that have allowed us to have in -depth and 
calm discussion s about all the issues involved. So, we are really pleased with the progress that has 
been made. Costa Rica supports the moratorium. In fact, our starting point is that we should adopt WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 13 - 
 
  a permanent solution  in relation to the non -imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions. 
In the discussio ns we  have held so far , empirical evidence and studies from different sources have 
demonstrated the positive impact of the moratorium for all Members, and particularly for developing 
countries and for micro and small and medium -sized enterprises. But they have also demonstrated 
the negative implications of not renewing the moratorium . That is why Costa Rica firmly supports 
this element .  
1.79.  I would like to take note also of the proposal by South Africa. I am waiting for instructions 
from capital , but prelimina rily it raises many questions and concerns. First of all, we do not agree 
with paragraph 1 on the termination of the moratorium . Second, it includes elements  that have not 
been discussed and that, in addition, fall outside of the role of this Organization. I am not sure what 
is meant by the establishment of  a fund. Who will manage it? Will the WTO become a development 
bank or an investment bank ? The other element in paragraph 5  that raises many questions is how 
the WTO can dictate binding rules on the private sector . This is an organi zation of  States and customs 
territories,  and it does not  dictate rules  for the private sector  – at least not directly  but through the 
exercise of the role of the governments of each of the Members. Finally, on the other do cument 
presented by South Africa, I think that  many of the  elements and conclusions contained therein are 
linked to  competition policy issues that are not related to the moratorium. South Africa is trying to 
establish a link which we think is a  little bit  forced  and artificial , implying that anti-competition 
practises are in place because of the moratorium , which seems unfounded . I think the issues raised 
in the study can be addressed through national legislation . Before concluding, I would just like to 
signal that we are  interested in the proposal made by the ACP Group.  
1.80.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  delivered the following statement:  
1.81.  We align ourselves with the statement made by Canada at the meeting today, as we are also 
one of the co -sponsors of the communication WT/GC/W/ 909 together with 21 other WTO Members 
and would continue to voice our strong support to extend the moratorium until  MC14. We have j ust 
one preliminary comment on the South African  proposal . The termination of the moratorium will be 
a non -starter for us . We will continue to examine the submission by ACP  Group  in greater detail. We 
look forward to working constructively with all Members and advancing our discussions on the draft 
Ministerial decision in the run -up to MC13.  
1.82.  The representative of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
1.83.  Thank you, Facilitator , for your strong leadership throughout the year. Thanks for as king us 
to focus not on what divides us but on moving to text discussion and what we can all agree on. 
On the communication  WT/GC/W/909 , we align with the statement of Canada , as co-sponsors, and 
we thank Canada and Switzerland for bringing together a diverse range of voices to co -sponsor that  
communication , and indeed for continuing to consult with groups and Members beyond that  group 
of co-sponsors to help us build consensus.  
1.84.  We note communication  WT/GC/W/911  from South Africa . In the spirt of textual comments 
we can not support paragraph  1 in relation to the moratorium. In terms of paragraph 4, we would be 
interested to hear about the gaps in existing funds and what is being targeted here. From our 
perspective we are keen to support funds that have a track record as being already recognised by 
developing countrie s and LDCs. We had heard a lot of support in our region for the work of UNCTAD  
and today our Ambassador announced AUD 3 million  of new support for the UNCTAD digital economy 
programme. We a lso have the e -commerce Capacity Building Framework announced by the 
co-convenors of the e -commerce JSI . We stand ready to provide further support as needed and we 
would like to have a discussion about the gaps in the existing capacity building frameworks . In terms 
of where we have convergence, we are open to what further concrete outcomes we could deliver as 
part of the Work Programm e and indeed that was echoed  in the room today . On the ACP Group 
submission, the proposal has some good ideas for the work we can do together next year. We stand 
ready  to bring these three decisions together to get a consensus decision at MC13.  
1.85.  The represe ntative of Chinese Taipei  delivered the following statement:  
1.86.  We are pleased to co -sponsor the WT/GC/W/909  draft Ministerial decision.  This proposal 
recognizes the revitalization of the Work Programme and  brings reflections on the next steps for a 
post-MC13 work plan. At the same time, we pay close attention to the views shared by Members on WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 14 - 
 
  this prop osal. We appreciate the introduction of the proposals from South Africa and the ACP Group . 
We view positively the perspectives put forth by the ACP Group  as a potential bas is for further 
reflection.  
1.87.  Turning to South Africa 's proposal, we are currently cond ucting internal reviews, and would 
like to share preliminary feedback. We disagree with paragraph 1 regarding its call to terminate the 
moratorium. It is crucial to recognize the complex nature of the global digital economy ecosystem, 
which encompasses all  stakeholders of platforms, suppliers and consumers, who are closely 
interconnected to each other.  Imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions will invariably 
impact the whole ecosystem and players, regardless of their business size or revenue. It is 
undeniable that the MSMEs would be the most vulnerable, given their limited resources to adapt to 
drastic changes in the digital trade environment.  We also have one question on paragraph 5, which 
advocates for Ministers to agree that private online plat forms must promote greater inclusivity 
through their internal promotion measures. We seek clarity on the proponent 's view regarding the 
WTO's decision influencing enterprises ' decisions in a digital economy that fundamentally operates 
on a market -based app roach.  
1.88.  The representative of Singapore  delivered the following statement:  
1.89.  I would like to start by putting on record my delegation 's appreciation to Ambassador Usha 
Dwarka -Canabady for her able leadership in advancing discussions under  the Work Programme o n 
Electronic Commerce . I will keep my intervention very short and react quickly to the draft decisions 
on the table. I am very p leased to see the three versions of the draft Ministerial decisions on the 
table, and that Members have started to engage on the  text. This is aligned with many Members ' 
calls to agree on this issue sooner rather than at the eleventh hour. On the specific proposals, we 
have co -sponsored the communication WT/GC/W/ 909 led by Canada and Switzerland , and naturally 
aligned with their statement. On the ACP Group proposal, I took a quick look and am pleased to see 
that there is a growing number of Members supporting an extension while having ongoing 
discussions. On  South Africa 's proposal, we would disagree with the first para graph , and would hope 
that they can join the emerging consensus around the extension  of the moratorium . Finally, we 
would want to draw Members ' attention to the joint report by World Bank, UNCT AD, IMF, OECD and 
WTO. Singapore is also working with UNCTAD to demonstrate practical, viable, effective and efficient 
means to tap on the revenue collection opportuni ties in E -Commerce.  
1.90.  The representative of Korea, Republic of  delivered the following statement:  
1.91.  I would like to express my sincere gratitude , Madam Chair,  for your consistent dedication to 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and extend a special appreciation to the Secretariat  
for organizing th ese meeting s every month.  I would like to thank Canada, Switzerland and South 
Africa for their communication s. As a co -sponsor of the communication WT/GC/W/909 , Korea 
strongly supports the extension of both the e-commerce moratorium and  the Work Programme  on 
Electronic Commerce . Since the extension of the moratorium was emphasized in the previous 
meeting, I will not  repeat it and wish to primarily provi de comments on the communication from 
South Africa.  
1.92.  The dominant position of global big tech in the market has been experienced not only by 
developing countries but also by many other nations regardless of the level of national development, 
although there may be some slight differences in degree. Resolving global common issues through 
tariff imposition is not feasible. Instead, it may lead to the initiation of retaliatory tariffs. Global 
digital trade could be severely disrupted, causing harm to all Member s. In addressing this global 
tech issue, Members are encouraged to implement differentiated competition and industrial policies 
in each country, such as promoting a symbiotic business model for global big tech with MSMEs in 
developing countries, technology advisory services, and so on.  
1.93.  As the digital economy rapidly expands, the OECD is undertaking digital tax initiatives to 
complement the traditional analog ue-based tax system. It is expected that a global minimum tax 
will be implemented soon, and ongoing ef forts are anticipated for continued tax adjustments suitable 
for the digital era. Introducing traditional analog ue-based customs duties to digital transactions 
immediately could pose numerous challenges. The digital era is now calling for new thinking and 
approaches to cross border transactions. Therefore, Korea believes that it is pragmatic to extend 
the moratorium and further discuss possible tax policies, institutional frameworks, the development WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 15 - 
 
  dimension and other collaborative measures , including solu tion for the digital divide , through the 
Work Programme.  On the other hand, from an economic theory perspective, in situations where 
companies have significant market dominance, the cost of customs duties is likely to be primarily 
passed on to consumers in  the form of price increases rather than being a burden on the companies 
themselves. Especially considering the intermediate nature of digital goods and services, it  is 
important to recognize that cost increases for MSMEs in developing countries and LDCs c ould 
potentially undermine their competitiveness. Taking these circumstances into account, Korea ha s 
joined the proposal to extend both  the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmission with many other Members. Korea looks 
forward to continuing constructive discussions on e -commerce next year.   
1.94.  The representative of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.95.  Thank you to everyone for their c omments. As noted by my colleague earlier from 
Switzerland , we see a lot of value and food for thought in the comments that have been made  
specifically  around develop ment references and ongoing work in the Work Programme . We will 
certainly take th ese back and have further consideration and  ongoing disc ussions with Members 
around the room across all levels of development to ensure inclusiv ity in the consideration of our 
draft. I will leave my comments at that, but I will turn to my colleague from Switzerland if he has 
anything else to add.   
1.96.  The represent ative of Switzerland  delivered the following statement:  
1.97.  I do not have much more to  add. We stand ready to  closely discuss with different Members 
who have provided their views and input s. We are ready to review our proposal to capture some of 
the comments m ade today , in particular  with reference to the development dimension . We have also 
noted a couple of comments with regard to the moratorium and the set of questions that certain 
Members would like to continue discussing.    
1.98.  The representative of South Afric a delivered the following statement:   
1.99.  When I made my earlier i ntervention , I had not had an opportunity to peruse the  submission 
made by the ACP Group . So, I want to thank the ACP Group  for this, and I would also like to thank 
Canada for presenting the document  WT/GC/W/909 , as well as Switzerland. I want to  appreciate all 
the colleagues that have given very substantive input to our  recommendations and submission. 
While , at this stage,  we do not agree with everything that we  have heard, we are very appreciative 
of the feedback which was constructive,  and we will certainly endeavour to incorporate all of  the 
constructive feedback  into the instrument that we  have developed . We are very open t o engaging 
with all Members in this regard. I would want to ask the Secretariat  whether  the minutes could be 
finalized as soon as possible  because it would allow us to engage with all of the very rich material 
that we  have heard today , as we look into the revisions .  
1.100.   The Chairperson  thanked Members and reminded delegations to send their statements by 
close of business Monday , 11 December,  so that the minutes could be finalized as soon as possible . 
She said that, when it came  to the introduction of documents , the practice was to  wait for the 
Member  submitting the communication  to present its document. In this case , there was a draft 
decision from the ACP  Group , which although it  had not been presented , was self -evident and 
straightforward. She therefore suggest ed that delegations look at the three submissions and submit 
any additional comment in writing to the Secretariat by Friday, 15 December, instead of waiting until 
the meeting scheduled for 25 January 2024. This would give  a chance for the ACP paper to be 
considered. She hoped that the ACP Group  would not disagree, but she would hate to defer 
consideration  of their submission until the end of January  2024. She asked whether this would be 
acceptable . As there were no objecti ons, she agreed to proceed in that way.  
1.101.   She then proceeded to summarize what she had heard  at the present meeting . She noted 
some commonality on language , for example the acknowledgement of the reinvigoration of the Work 
Programme ; pursuing the Work Programme in a structure similar to what ha d been done since MC12, 
which allow ed for sharing of experiences , exchange s on trade -related issues bringing forth dif ferent 
perspectives , and a deepening of discussions ; continuing to work with IGOs to address the 
challenges of e-commerce ; the need to intensify training and capacity building ; and giving greater WT/GC/WPEC/M/11  
 
- 16 - 
 
  visibility to the development dimension of the Work Programm e and recognising the challenges of 
the digital divide . This was what she had heard in terms of commonalities.  
1.102.   On elements where there were less commonali ties, she said that there was no agreement 
on how the work under the dedicated  discussions should be reported upon , i.e., whether there  should 
be a more prescriptive approach with exact dates for reporting , or whether more time should be 
given to different bodies to evolve the discussions at their level.  This was something that might 
require further discussion to refine the structure  for reporting and consider whether it was needed. 
There had been calls for clarifications  on the proposal by South Africa to establish a Fund, which 
certainly look ed very interesting,  but a better understanding was needed on how such a Fund would 
fit in with other initiatives , for example the Global Digital Compa ct. She noted that at the Human 
Rights Council  that day, she had been struck by the fact that Members had created so many 
mand ates and mandate holders . In doing so, Members needed  to be sure that they could handle 
what they were creating. This needed to be borne in mind  in discussing this issue and it would be 
useful to hear more from South Africa. Similarly, for paragraph 5 of t he South African submission, 
it would be useful to hear more on the language proposed on MSMEs. Everybody agreed on the 
imperative to help MSME s. She referred to what Costa  Rica had said about the WTO not creating 
rules and impos ing them on the private sec tor, but she also noted that the rules that the WTO  
create d also applied to those private sector operators. Convergence needed to be found on this 
because there was going to be only one set of trade rules. In her view,  it would be useful to have 
some further clarifications , if possible, ahead of the meeting on 25 January  2024, for Members to 
better understand each other.   
1.103.   Turning to the elements where there was the least  commonality, she noted that  with respect 
to the moratorium , Members agreed that more work was needed on scope, definition and impact. 
Members had held three Dedicated Discussions on the moratorium thus far. Did Members want more 
formal or informal discussions? Did any delegation int end to put a clear proposal on what scope and 
definition should be? She knew that some delegations had referred to this in their submissions and 
had asked the Secretariat to compile all the references to scope and definition found in Members' 
submissions. She said she would share the compilation informally with Members so that they could 
look at what had been said in those submissions . She said that the only way to move forward was 
to try to converge on some kind of understanding  on these issues . This did n ot mean that once there 
was agree ment on scope and definition, there would be a permanent moratorium , but she considered 
that this deserved  deepe r discussion  and if Members could put forward proposals in this regard , it 
would be helpful. She thanked Canada  and the other proponents, South  Africa and the ACP Group  
for being bold enough to come forward and put on the table what they wanted to see as a draft 
decision  and asked whether the same could be done on scope and definition  to see where there was 
convergence and what kind of discussions were needed.  
1.104.   In terms of next steps, she said that she did not want to wait until 25 January  2024 to 
re-start the discussions, so she might convene delegations around the week of 15 January  2024 for 
consultations. If Members were able to put aside the issues where there was convergence, then the 
focus could shift to the more difficult  discussions . In the meantime, further clarifications from South 
Africa and the ACP Group would be welcome. As  there was no objection to the proposed next steps, 
she suggested proceeding in that manner. She recalled that the General Council meeting the 
following week had been extended to three days. She therefore asked delegations not to repeat in 
the General Coun cil the discussions and comments made at the present meeting  in the interest 
of time.  
1.105.    The meeting was adjourned.  
__________