RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/75  
 
30 April 2019 
(19-2944) Page: 1/9 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 20 MARCH  2019 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 20 March 2019  chaired by 
Mr. Henning Envall from Sweden. The agenda for the meeting was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/WPDR/1 3 dated 8 March 2019 . The report of the previous  meeting of the Working Party, 
held on 5 December  2018, is contained in document S/WPDR/M/7 4. 
Before turning  to the substance  of the meeting,  the Chairperson  recalled  that the handover  of the 
chairpersonship  of the Working  Party would  normally  take place at the end of the first meeting  of 
the year;  however,  as consultations  by the out-going  Chair of the Council  for Trade  in Services  (CTS)  
were still under  way, the handover  would  be postponed  until the beginning  of the next meeting.   
 
No item was raised  under  Other  Business , and the agenda  was adopted  as circulated . 
 
1  ITEM A: DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLIN ES UNDER GATS ARTICL E VI:4  
1.1.  The Chairperson  stated that the delegation of India had circulated a revised communication, 
with the title "GATS Article VI: - Disciplines for Supply of a Services through the Presence of a 
Natural Person of a  Member in the Territory of Another Member  - Revision " (S/WPDR/W/61 /Rev.1 , 
dated 8 March 2019 ). 
1.2.  The representative of India recalled that the only meeting of the WPDR in 2018 had taken place 
on 5 December 2018 , to discuss India 's submission S/WPDR/W/61 tit led "GATS Article VI:4 - 
Disciplines for supply of a service through the Presence of a Natural Person of a Member in the 
territory of another Member "2 She recalled that the WPDR was the  WTO body mandated to develop 
any necessary disciplines in accordance with paragraph 4 of Article  VI of the GATS.  
1.3.  The Indian submission  in document  S/WPDR/W/61 had been  introduced with two broad 
objectives:  (i) firstly, to rejuvenate and reenergize work in the WPDR which had not seen any 
discussions in 2018 until December of that year ; and (ii) s econdly, to bring to prominence the need 
for commercially meaningful disciplines in the area of Mode 4 , which was the most important mode 
of export interest for most developing countries, and especially LDCs, as was evident  from the LDC 
Collective Request (S/C/W/356).  
1.4.  India's proposal had received good support from developing countries and LDCs. Many 
Members, both  individually and as representatives of key groups, had taken the floor to respond to 
the Indian proposal, mostly  favorably . In this regard, her delegation considered it to be important 
to highlight the following reasons cited at the last meeting  by Uganda on behalf of the LDC Group, 
which ma de the Indian proposal attr active:  "first it allows all Members of the WTO to re -engage in 
the WPDR in accordance with the GATS Article VI.4 negotiations mandate, which is built in to the 
legal framework agreed in the Uruguay Round multilaterally;  second, the proposal is based on 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 The statement by the delegation of India was circulated as document RD/SERV/152, dated 
20 March  2019.  S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the 2009 WPDR Ch air's text; and  third, the proposal takes on board ideas and considerations 
advanced by the LDC Group in various past discussions on the subject. " 
1.5.   The delegation of India had also carefully noted the LDC Group 's appreciation for the various 
provisions of the Indian proposal, namely: - paragraphs 2 and 3 (on Members right to regulate); 
paragraph 32 (on use of electronic means for conducting examinations from the home country of 
the applicant); paragraph 343 (on graduating LDCs ability to benefit from the de veloping country 
transition al period); paragraph 364 (that LDCs are not required to apply the disciplines but only 
encouraged ); and paragraph 375 (on reduced administrative fees for service suppliers from 
developing country Members). The Indian delegation agreed that these provisions were critical.  
1.6.  The representative of India further noted that the ACP Group ha d emphasised their offensive 
interests "in the elimination or reduction of restrictions in qualification requirements and procedures; 
and licensing requirements and procedures, particularly in Mode 4, in favour of developing countries 
and LDCs."  Against  this backdrop, she emphasize d the significance of the following provisions of the 
proposal for disciplines on qualification requirements and procedure s, all of which had been  part of 
earlier texts on disciplines on domestic regulation  that had been discussed in the WPDR:  
paragraph  176: Verification and assessment of qualifications of foreign service suppliers – 
consideration to professional experience and membership in professional association; Para 187: 
Identification of deficiencies – details of how deficiency in qualification can be addressed by 
applicants; Para 32: Examinations – through electronic means, and from home country of the 
applicant; Para 208: Recognition – to provide adequate  opportunity to developing country Members, 
in particular to LDCs, to negotiate accession to existing agreements pertaining to recognition - 
pursuant to GATS Article VII and the various provisions built in the GATS for increasing trade 
opportunities for developing countries.  
1.7.  Enthused by Members ' interest and responses, and after India's extensive bilateral 
consultations with several  Members and groups, India had been  encouraged to revise the proposal 
to add further value to it. One of the main changes in the revision concerned the i ntroduction of 
disciplines on application  procedures and requirements for temporary entry related to fulfilment of 
domestic regulations under Article VI:4 . On this issue, the immed iate question that arose related to 
reasons for which  disciplines on temporary entry could be introduced under the mandate provided 
by GATS Article VI:4 . In India 's view, the  answer to this question could  be easily found in GATS 
Article VI:4 and the Counci l Decision dated 28 April  1999 (contained in document S/L/70) . While 
GATS Article VI:4 mandate d disciplining measures 'relating ' to qualification requirements and 
procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements, the Council Decision in document 
S/L/70 mandate d Members to  develop  any necessary  disciplines to ensure that such measures d id 
not constitute unnecessary barriers t o trade in services.  Most importantly, Members seem ed to be 
insisting : for instance, the LDC Group statement delivered on 5 December 2018 specifically urged 
the Working Party "… that any disciplines in this area must help create export trading opportunitie s 
for LDCs service suppliers taking into account elements of the LDC Services Waiver Collective 
Request, namely reduction of fees, paperwork, and onerous procedures and requirements for: visas, 
work permits, and residence permits, and facilitation of creat ing a better enabling environment for 
recognition of LDC institutions, degrees and qualifications."  Further, she quoted the delegation of 
Turkey which had also emphasized the need for disciplines that addressed  procedures for entry and 
temporary stay of na tural person service suppliers which would enable Members to bring to life 
existing commitments.  
1.8.  Coming to the rationale for the proposal, she provided the example of a natural person 
applicant who need ed a visa/permit to travel to a foreign Member for applying for a license as per 
the host country 's licensing requirements and/or licensing  procedures , or for taking  an examination 
as part of the host country 's qualification requirements/procedures for the p urpose of obtaining 
authorisation to supply a service  committed in the GATS by that foreign host country . Now unless it 
was possible for that applicant to 'electronically ', that is, from his home country, obtain authorisation 
                                                
3 Paragraph 40 in revised proposal (S/WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
4 Paragraph 42 in revised proposal (S/ WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
5 Paragraph 43 in revised proposal (S/WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
6 Paragraph 18 in revised proposal (S/WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
7 Paragraph 19 in revised proposal (S/WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
8 Paragraph 21 in revised proposal (S/WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
 S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 3 - 
 
  to supply the service in the foreign country in any committed service sector, application procedures 
and requirements for temporary entry that related to fulfilment of the host country 's domestic 
regulations had to  be part of the disciplines being developed under the GATS VI:4 mandate.  In other 
words, disciplines on such types of temporary entry would  complement and supplement disciplines  
on licensing requirements and procedures, qualification requireme nts and procedures, and technical 
standards affecting trade in services  for a commercially  meaningful outcome. Of course, India was  
conscious that the scope of temporary entry for which disciplines could  be proposed under the GATS  
Article VI:4 mandate must  be related to or being undertaken to fulfil  a domestic regulation  
specifically listed under VI:4.  
1.9.  To summarise, the delegation of India was  proposing disciplines on temporary entry measures  
such as on timelines, procedures and fees  only in the context whe re (i) there was a specific Mode 4 
commitment; (ii) entry was required to fulfil a GATS Article VI:4 measure arising out of either 
qualification requirements or procedures, licensing requirements or procedures, or technical 
standards ; and (iii) electronic authorisation was not possible.  The proposed disciplines on temporary 
entry would  not prejudice Members ' rights to regulate, and to introduce new regulations, on the 
supply of services within their territories in order to meet national policy ob jectives.  
1.10.   As regards the specific disciplines proposed on 'application procedures and requirements for 
temporary entry ' under section VIII of the revised proposal, the representative of India  welcome d 
comments from Members.  The section on Transparency ha d also been adequately amended at 
various places to incorporate disciplines on temporary entry measures relating  to qualification 
requirements or procedures, licensing requirements or procedures, or technical standards.   
1.11.   In addition to the above -mentioned ad dition to the proposal, a number of other key changes 
had been introduced in the revised proposal:  (i) in the section on Transparency, noting China 's 
suggestion to require Members to publish relevant documents on -line for facilitating natural persons ' 
access to relevant information, India had  incorporated the word 'preferably ' to accord preference to 
publication by electronic means;  (ii) paragraph 149 in India 's text ha d been revised to "should 
endeavour" instead of "shall endeavour" , as suggested by the LD C Group;  (iii) a  best endeavour 
provision had been  proposed for not requiring physical presence to submit an application for a license 
or qualification (new paragraph 24);  (iv) the section on 'Licensing and qualification procedures ' had 
been re-organised to remove duplication and for better flow ; (v) since examinations might  be 
required not just to comply with  qualification procedures, but also for licensing requirements, 
licensing procedures, or qualification procedures, the requirement of e xaminations specifically for 
'qualification procedures ' had been deleted in paragraph 32;  (vi) the paragraph under 'Institutional 
Provisions ' had been  revised in accordance with earlier texts discussed in the WPDR.  
1.12.   The representative of India looked forwar d to Members ' suggestions on the proposed 
amendments.  She recalled that the delegations of China, Egypt and Nigeria had raised a number of 
interesting questions to which her delegation had responded bilaterally . India was  happy to share 
these responses wit h other interested Members.  
1.13.   She noted that the Secretariat had provided a briefing on the history of domestic regulation  
negotiations  the day before the present meeting of the Working Party. Her delegation was extremely 
grateful for the very informative pr esentation. She noted from the presentation that Members had 
in the past  agreed to several  useful disciplines for professional services, especially in the area of 
qualification requirement s and procedures which ha d a significant bearing on Mode 4  access. She 
hoped that  this would be borne in mind by the membership in the context of future disciplines to be 
developed under the mandate provided by the GATS Article  VI:4. 
1.14.   India ha d proposed a draft for discussion on  domestic regulation  disciplines for Mode 4 service 
suppliers. Through this proposal, her delegation hoped to reinvigorate the WPDR discussions ; she 
welcome d constructive suggestions to take the process ahead.  
1.15.   Global c hanges in demographics and patterns of investment in huma n capital ha d created 
increased scope for international trade in professional services. The scope for mutually beneficial 
trade was, however, inhibited by a range of qualification, licensing and entry related requirements 
                                                
9 Paragraph 15 in revised proposal (S/WPDR/W/61/Rev.1) . 
 S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 4 - 
 
  and procedures. Commercially meani ngful disciplines on these domestic regulations  could therefore 
unleash the potential for mutually beneficial trade.  She concluded  by referring to the very pertinent 
remarks by Rwanda at the last WPDR meeting – namely that "… clear disciplines on domestic 
regulations in Mode 4  are indeed important, not only for India but also for all developing countries , 
and in particular LDCs. Members cannot continue neglecting this longstanding issue for developing 
countries."  
1.16.   The representative of  the European Union  stated that his delegation had been listening 
carefully to India 's presentation at the current and during the previous meeting of the WPDR.  The 
EU was a fierce supporter of multilateral work on domestic regulation, as it had demonstrated 
constantly over the last 20 years. His delegation remain ed to be convinced that th e text proposed 
by the delegation of India wa s the solution that was needed to solve the deadlock that the Working 
Party had been  facing since 2017. The Secretariat had set out in its briefing the previous day how 
the negotiations on domestic regulation ha d evolved over more than 20 years from sector -specific 
discussions e.g. on accountanc y services , to horizontal discussions covering all sectors and all modes 
of supply. The Indian proposal to limit the discussions on domestic regulation to just one mode of 
supply was totally new . Whether domestic regulation disciplines apply only to one mo de of supply 
or to all modes of supply was irrelevant in the view of his delegation , since the scope does not alter 
the nature of the disciplines , nor their impact on domestic regulatory frameworks. Previous attempts 
to move to text -based negotiations in t his group ha d been turned down in 2017 for various reason s: 
some Members had demanded that p rogress on agriculture needed to be made first; others had 
refused to engage on text proposals that were not comprehensive - something that had been  
qualified as a "piecemeal approach "; other Members had rejected the mere concept that licensing 
and qualification criteria should be objective and transparent; several groups of Members expressed 
fundamental concerns about the implications of the proposed disciplines on their domestic regulatory 
frameworks while some others expressed doubts that the mandate of GATS Article VI:4 could cover 
disciplines on transparency.  Those concerns ha d prevented the Working Party  from moving forward 
in 2017. The delegation of the Europea n Union did  not understand, however, how all these past 
concerns were being addressed by the Indian proposal . At this stage, it w as up to the proponent to 
demonstrate how the proposed approach c ould gather consensus.  
1.17.   The representative of Bangladesh , noting that his delegation was still awaiting final comments  
from capital , apprecia ted the initiative  by the delegation of  India, which allowed all Members to re -
engage in the WPDR in accordance with the multilateral negoti ating mandate contained in GATS 
Article VI :4. In general, the Indian proposal touche d upon several points that the LDC Group had 
mentioned in their collective request. He urged that any consensus on any negotiations under GATS 
Article VI :4 contain the principle that LDCs be exempted from implementing the disciplines. His 
delegation insisted that graduating LDCs be afforded substantial time to transition before taking on 
any domestic regulation  commitments.   
1.18.   The representative of  Panama  noted the extreme importance of the services sector for her 
country  as it was the main driver of Panama 's economy. For that reason , her delegation  was always 
prepared to discuss proposals seeking to improve services trade on a multilateral basis. Also, for 
that reason , she thank ed the delegation of India for their submission on disciplines on domestic 
regulation to the Working Party which was the appropriate body  for such work . She noted that i t 
would be extremely difficult for Panama to look at new commitments and have discussions solely on 
domestic regulation unless there was  progress in other areas such as services market access.  
Likewise,  it would be hard for Panama to adopt any commitments that were limited exclusively to 
one single mode of supply. Mode 4 was highly sensitive for delegations such as Panama and others. 
Nevertheless, Panama was prepared to engage in any process as long as there was enough space 
to discuss substance, scope , and implementation within a broader  context, in which the interests of 
all Members c ould be reflected.  
1.19.   The representative of Senegal , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group , stated that t he LDC 
Group continue d to examine  the various  elements  of India's revised  proposal  and made  further  
comments  without  prejudice  to the LDC Group 's and individual  LDC interests  in the negotiations.   
Some  of these  comments  were registered  because  LDCs would ultimately  graduate  and then be 
subject  to any disciplines  agreed  to by all Members.  Therefore,  the LDC group  wished to see the 
right to regulate  as operative  text rather  than preambular  language . Regarding  paragraph  9, the 
LDC Group  noted that India's proposal  was to apply  the disciplines  only to Mode  4. While  the LDC 
Group  noted that Mode  4 was of offensive  interest  to LDCs, and that qualification  requirements  and S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 5 - 
 
  procedures  were particularly  relevant  in that regard,  the Group  would  be interested  to know if India 
could  provide  specific  examples  of how the proposed  disciplines  on licensing  requirements  and 
procedures  would  operate  in a Mode  4-only context.  Regarding  paragraph  12 of the proposal , while 
the LDC Group  noted that the wording  follow ed paragraph  12 in the 2009 Chair's text, it remain ed 
concerned  about  the need to meet national  policy  objectives  which  were of equal  importan ce. He 
thank ed India for revising  the text in paragraph  15 to 'should ' as was the case in the 2009 Chair 
text. He noted that India's paragraph  40 include d that graduated  LDCs would  benefit  from the 
developing  country  transition al period.  This was something  very important  to LDCs.  However,  the 
LDC Group  remain ed concerned  that a graduating  LDC would  no longer  be eligible  for special  and 
differential  treatment  as an LDC, even if it might  have special  needs  to adapt  its regulatory  regime,  
responsible  agencies  and stakeholders  to the new disciplines.  Moreover,  different graduating  LDCs 
would  have differing  levels  of capacity.   
1.20.   The LDC Group  sought  the views  of India on paragraph  44 of the 2009 Chairs  text i.e. "Where  
circumstances  allow for the phased  introduction  of new licensing  requirements  and procedures,  
qualification  requirements  and procedures,  and technical  standards,  Members  shall consider  longer  
phase -in periods  for such measures  in service  sectors  and modes  of supply  of export  interest  to 
developing  country  Members. " The representative  of Senegal  noted that in its revised proposal,  India 
added an element  on streamlining  and reducing  Mode  4 entry  hindrances  and had referenced  in its 
introduct ory remarks  the LDC collective  request  approach.  Indeed,  the LDC Group  had asked  that 
special  provisions  be included  in any disciplines  to include  application  of preferential  treatment  
elements  from sections  B and C of the "LDC Collective  request  pursuant  to the Bali Decision  on the 
Operationalization  of the Waiver  concerning  Preferential  Treatment  to Services  and Service  Suppliers  
of Least  Developed  Countries  "(document  S/C/W/356  of 21 July 2014). While  some  areas  might be 
said to involve  visa issues,  he noted  that developing  countries  and LDCs had not agreed  on this 
issue, especially  since most Members  had made  horizontal  commitments  in their schedules  of 
commitments  under  Mode  4 involving  visa categories  of natural  persons.  He thank ed India for 
including  visa waiver  provisions  for LDC suppliers  as one of their notified  preferences.    
1.21.   The representative of  China  thanked India for the concrete  responses to all questions raised 
in the previous discussion. The revised submission further sharpen ed the focus on the issues at 
hand.  Suggestions in paragraph 26 regarding acceptance of authenticated copies of documents  and 
electronic application s had particular value given the real -life delays  facing applicants, who sought 
temporary entry into another Member as individual  service suppliers. Presence  of natural persons 
was an important mode  of supply in which  all WTO Member s, and especially developing Members 
had strong export interest. However, the commitments taken by Members under this mode 
significant ly lagged behind other modes of supply and a lack of disciplines on Mode 4  with regard to  
domestic regulation  further affected the implementation of Mode 4  commitments . His delegation  
welcome d any efforts that would  help address this particular concern of developing Members. He 
urged Members to remain constructive  and flexib le in the relevant discussions. Article VI:4 of the 
GATS establishe d the mandate and specifie d the scope of negotiation on  domestic regulation . China 
was willing to work with  Members to achieve a balanced , multilateral,  development -oriented 
outcome  in the future.  
1.22.   The representative of Australia  noted that her delegation had a long -standing interest in 
domestic regulation disciplines and  continue d to support discussion on  any constructive proposals 
wherever it was possible to make progress. Her d elegation had not engaged on India 's proposal, 
and was seeking to understand the views of Members, particularly  those who in the past ha d not 
engaged or no t supported discussion on this topic. In light of the  statements made by other 
Members, her delegation remain ed to be convinced  that it would be possible t o achieve an outcome 
on the basis of India 's proposal. Her delegation would  continue to listen and en gage with Members 
to better understand how the proponent intended to take discussions forward.  
1.23.   The representative of  South Africa , speaking on  behalf of the African Group  stated that t he 
Group  was still assessing th e revised submission internally and in capitals , and offered some general 
and preliminary views on Mode 4  and domestic regulation specifically.  The African Group recognise d 
the relevance of Mode 4  as an area of long-standing  interest to developing and least  developed 
countries. She t hanked the Secretariat for  the briefing session  on domestic regulation the previous 
day as it was always useful to recall the historical context of WTO agreements for new and season ed 
negotiators. Th e meeting had reminded Members  that the intention of the drafters of GATS 
Article  VI:4 was to support the facilitation of professionals who temporarily crossed the border to 
supply services under Mode 4 , hence there had been agreement to establish accountancy disciplines S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 6 - 
 
  first. The Afr ican Group underst ood the sensitivities around this area for some Members, but it was 
important to explore further the challenges facing developing countries under Mode 4 , and how 
domestic regulation disciplines c ould help in addressing these challenges. A s a group of developing 
countries, African Members  believe d that Mode 4  was a critical component of any discussion on trade 
in services. The African Group submission to the Ministerial Conference , in JOB/SERV/274 , requested 
that discussions should focus am ong other elements on how disciplines on domestic regulation would  
address the real needs of developing countries in particular on Mode 4  related issues. Projections 
showed that in 2050 the bulk of the world 's population growth w ould take place in Africa.  In contrast, 
developed countries ' population growth was declining and population aging was stead ily increas ing. 
Therefore, movement of persons  could be an opportunity for the whole membership , and African 
countries had a robust labou r force and the global demand for skilled workers could be met by the 
African labour market. As Members  conside red policy options to address this, the African Group  
welcome d discussions on Mode 4 .  
1.24.   The representative of Cuba thank ed India for tabling their revised proposal  which went  beyond 
market access in services and address ed issues linked to development, as well as  priorities that had 
not received attention in  the negotiations until now.  
1.25.   The representative of Brazil  consider ed the development of disciplines for  the supply of  
service s through the presence of natural persons  to be of great importance, particularly for  
developing countries. The Secretariat briefing session on  domestic regulat ion negotiations the 
previous day had  highlighted some important issues that had been  raised in the past and continue d 
to be central to the discussions either in the WPDR or under the joint statement initiative in which 
Brazil was part icipating . In this la ter discussion , Brazil ha d focused its efforts on the development of  
appropriate disciplines on licenc ing and qualification requirements and procedures as well as 
recognition of professional qualifications. Brazil was of the view  that any suggestions on th ose 
elements should be the object of serious discussions under the WPDR. While his delegation was still 
analysing  the revised version of India 's communication he was willing to offer preliminary comments 
on the new elements introduced in the revised paper related to the procedures and requirements 
for temporary entry. Since this issue had been  introduced in different parts of the text including  in 
the general provisions under paragraph  10, he  wished to  confirm whether  from India's perspective 
all the disciplines should apply horizontally  with regard to that matter. If this i nclud ed those related 
to providing opportunities to comment on propos ed measures , he foresaw concerns by national 
authorities controlling borders, and administering visa and temporary entry rules. That said,  Brazil 
was willing to engage in further discussions on these and all the topics raised by India 's 
communication.  
1.26.    The representative of Pakistan  reiterated that his delegation remain ed interested in 
developments on Mode 4, and saw  value  in furthering discussions on this very important  issue for 
developing countries , which was unfortunately also one of the more neglected issues . 
1.27.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that the proposal was reviewed in capital and associate d 
his delegation with the statement made by the African Group.  Mode 4 was perhaps the most 
important mode of export interest for developing countries. However, export benefits derivable 
under Mode 4 by developing countries were in most cases seriously undermined by licensing 
requirements and procedures, qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards in 
export markets. In view of this, his delegation  was open to further discussi ons on th e issue and he 
hoped that  the discussions w ould take into account concerns relating to  the sovereign right of 
Members to regulate. As stated at the previous meeting of the WPDR, he hoped that issues of interest 
to developing countries w ould be pri oritized in the discussions , without at the same time diminishing 
the rights of developing countries.  
1.28.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  noted that for his delegation, as for many  
developing countries, Mode 4  was considered as an area of comparative advantage and constitute d 
an important component  for the Kyrgyz  economy. His country export ed a high share of services in 
relation to its population and the size of its economy . As many Kyrgyz citizens work ed as Mode 4  
service suppliers, effort s to bring certainty and predictability  to services trade under Mode 4  were of 
high importance to his delegation . The issue s raised by India were of interest to his delegation and 
he was looking forward to further active engagement on this issue.  
1.29.   The repre sentative of Barbados , speaking  on behalf of the ACP Group , noted that the Group  
had in the past emphasised its offensive interests in the elimination or reduction of restrictions in S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 7 - 
 
  qualification requirements and procedures; and licensing requirements and procedures, particularly 
in Mode 4 and in favour of developing countries and LDCs.  The Group was currently undertaking 
consultations on the Indian proposal both in Geneva and in capitals . She reiterate d the primacy of 
development and special and differential treatment in any discussions or outcomes on domestic 
regulation , and called for issues of interest to, and in favour of developing countries and LDCs to be 
prioritized within the deliberations. She further reiterate d the need for a clear understanding that 
any disciplines on domestic regulation should not impinge on developing countri es' rights to 
implement, adjust or further regulate their services sectors.  
1.30.   The ACP Group noted  the circulation of correspondence related to the joint statement initiative 
on domestic regulation  through the Secretariat . In order  to avoid any confusion or ambiguity for 
Members, she request ed that the Secretariat was clear in identifying correspondence that was being 
forwarded in relation to the informal process as opposed to that which was being circulated in relation 
to the multilaterally mandated work und er GATS Article VI:4 in the WPDR.  She express ed the 
willingness and readiness of the ACP Group to engage in the work of the Working Party and look ed 
forward to continued discussions in the multilateral forum.  
1.31.   The representative of Egypt  associate d himself with the statement made by South Africa on 
behalf of the African Group. His delegation took note of the submission and responses by India. The 
revised proposal was still under review by capital, but in general, Egypt welcome d the proposal which 
his delegation recognize d focuse d on developing disciplines on domestic regulation for Mode 4, with 
the aim to have a commercially meaningful outcome. The proposal need ed full engagement to 
explore further how an outcome could  be reached, and how disciplines on temporary entry measures  
could be incorporated in cases in which specific Mode 4 commitments  existed, a specific purpose to 
gain entry  existed, and  in situations where  Mode 4 service suppliers were normally confined to one 
sector.  It was also  important to discuss how to obtain a balance between Members ' rights and 
obligations under the proposed disciplines taking into consideration both duration and purpose of 
the stay.  
1.32.   The representative of Thailand  reiterated that her delegation  supported  text-based 
discussions in the WPDR to develop a multilateral out come on  domestic regulation  disciplines in 
accordance with the mandate in GATS Article VI:4. Thailand therefore thank ed India for the proposal 
and desire to  generate substantive discussions in th e WPDR to  take the process forward. Thailand 's 
domestic consu ltations and analysis were still on going and would take into account the  newly added 
elements  contained in the revised version, including the element relating to temporary entry 
measures. Generally , her delegation saw value in domestic regulation  disciplines that covered  all 
modes of supply, rather than being confined to any particular mode. Thailand st ood ready to further 
engage with the membership on th is important issue. She thanked the Secretariat for organising the 
briefin g session on  domestic regulation  negotiations and thought that the recap of the negotiating 
history had been  very informative and useful for future work.  
1.33.   The representative of  El Salvador  thanked India for the revised proposal and the th orough 
explanation.  While t he document was being analysed  in capital , she appreciate d the contribution 
which she felt would enable Members to revitalise discussion s in the WPDR . Her delegation attach ed 
total priority to multilateral discussions in this area and to reaching r esults . As was the case for most 
developing countries, Mode 4 was a very important subject matter for El Salvador. This made India 's 
contribution particularly positive. She noted t hat most provisions contained in the  draft text went 
back to the Chair text from 2009 in terms of transparency, licensing and qualification procedures 
and requirements , and technical standards. As these ha d been negotiated over recent years,  most 
delegations would be  familiar with them.  For El Salvador, Ind ia's communication was complementary  
to discussions that were revitalized in the CTS S pecial Session, and she hoped that in the near future 
Members would  be able to discuss market access for Mode 4  as well. El Salvador hope d to engage 
actively in future di scussions on th e proposal and expect ed to be able to contribute with detailed 
comments . 
1.34.   The representative of  Turkey  noted that her delegation did not think that Mode 4 was excluded 
from the current domestic regulation negotiating text ; however, the absence of provisions on 
licensing and qualification requirements weaken ed the importance of the text for Mode 4 supply of 
services. It would be wise for Members participating in the current initiative to further consider 
remedying the defic iencies of the current negotiating text, so as to obtain one single set of 
comprehensive domestic regulation disciplines.  As stated during the last meeting of the Working 
Party, Turkey would like to see Mode 4 entry and temporary stay disciplines discussed . Therefore, S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 8 - 
 
  although India' s effort to include entry and temporary stay related articles in its proposed text  were 
appreciated , Turkey  was not satisfied with the coverage of only domestic regulation disciplines, 
namely, those natural persons traveling to fulfil licensing, qualification or technical standards 
requirements. Also, regardless of the context, when disciplines on entry and temporary stay were 
discussed, Turkey expect ed more detailed disciplines on requirements, transparency and procedures 
than as presently covered by India' s proposal.  
1.35.   The representative of  New Zealand  noted that his delegation was  fiercely committed to a 
domestic regulation  multilateral outcome and  was committed to having constructive discussions. 
Like others, New Zealand was  however not convinced that the proposal resolve d the issue s that had 
affected previous discussions. He hoped the conversation c ould evolve to address those concerns.  
1.36.   The representative of Mexico  indicated  that her capital was currently reviewing India's 
proposal and appreciated how keen India and many developing countries were on liberalizing Mode 
4, which was a very important mode for cross -border trade for these countries, including Mexico . 
However, the multilateral mandate i n the GATS went beyond Mode 4 , covering other very relevant 
modes that need ed to be taken into account in drafting these disciplines. Nevertheless, Mexico  was 
open to continue the discussion in order to differentiate the elements in India 's communication.  
1.37.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic o f Venezuela  noted that the revised proposal by 
India was  being evaluated in capital . In preliminary comments , he saw positive elements for the 
debate  in the proposal. His delegation was not a demandeur  for services liberalization and was 
concerned with defending the fundamental interest in the right to regulate. However, he recognize d 
that the provision of services under Mode 4  was of great interest to developing countr ies, which was 
the reason why he hope d that th e issue c ould continue to be evaluated by the membership . 
1.38.   The representative of  the United States  noted that in light of the date at which the revised 
communication had been received, his delegation 's comments had to be  preliminary  as the  proposal  
was still being reviewed . The delegation of the United States  welcome d all efforts  in the WTO to 
revitalise the Committee system. That said , he was concerned that the Indian  proposal m ight be 
somewhat unreali stic. His delegation underst ood the interests by LDCs and other developing 
countries in Mode 4  and took those into account in considering th e proposal. The US had had long 
standing concerns and a certain degree of scepticism about horizontal disciplines on  domestic 
regulations . That scepticism was coloured to a certain extent by the past failures of th e Working 
Party to achieve consensus. Notwithstanding the interest s of many developing countries , his 
delegation  also ha d doubts about approaches to Mode 4  that would  not appear to lead to consensus. 
The transparent US Mode 4  system ha d been abused by some to the detriment of other developing 
countries including LDCs. At a time at which Members  were trying to fin d success in the WTO , he 
found it unfortunate to have a proposal that crosse d so many areas that Members ha d clearly 
indicated as unrealistic. In this light, it was also unfortunate that the proponent, despite many 
invitations, had not been willing to engage with Members in informal consul tations in which Members 
were trying to find common ground. Although not entirely persuaded , his delegation had 
nevertheless found these informal consultations to be quite constructive and helpful  to their own  
thinking , and he encourage d India to participa te. The United States was also sceptical whether  the 
proposal was appropriate for th e Working Party . GATS Article VI:4 , as the mandate of the WPDR  did 
not seem to create space for a modal negotiation. He remind ed Members that there was specific 
language su ggesting that there could be sectoral negotiations, but the mandate of the Working Party  
did not discuss the potential for modal negotiations , and he would be interested in any thoughts 
about the implications of that absence. The Indian  proposal , as revise d, also went beyond 
qualification requirements and procedures and licensing requirements procedures and technical 
standards. The US was to some degree  worried that th e proposal m ight in fact be outside of GATS 
Article VI:4 entirely. The attempt to create a link to the scope of GAT S Article VI:4 was unpersuasive. 
Finally,  the proposed text was based  on a text of 2009 which was  the work product of a single 
delegate that had been  undertaken on his own initiative and was not a WTO document . 
1.39.   The represen tative of  Canada  share d India 's view of the  importance of advancing work in  
domestic regulation and  remain ed open to engage in constructive and productive discussion s on this 
topic. As indicated by others, it was clear that significant discussions among Members ha d taken 
place on this topic in the Working Party, and Members ha d not been able to reach an outcome. 
Therefore, her delegation  also remain ed to be convinced that India 's proposed text could  offer a way 
forward.  S/WPDR/M/75  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.40.   The representative of  Ecuador  thank ed India for its work in strengthening discussion s on 
Mode  4, a subject that was of great importance for Ecuador as well as for developing and least 
developed countries . He welcome d the fact that th e debate was carried forward in a multilateral 
setting as provided for  in GATS Article VI:4. Many elements of India 's revised proposal allowed 
deepen ing of  the discussion in th e Working Party, such as transparency provisions on requirements, 
technical standards, licensing requirements and special and differential t reatment. Discussions 
should continue cautiously without extra burden for those who ha d given many allowances in their 
commitments. Ecuador committed to participate  constructively and multilaterally in future 
discussions on  India's proposal.  
1.41.   The representa tive of  Switzerland  indicated that his delegation was still studying th e revised 
proposal and was analysing the implications and interactions of the  proposed  disciplines which  were 
limited to only one mode of supply in respect of the negotiating mandate to develop general ly 
applicable domestic regulation  disciplines under the GATS Article VI:4. Switzerland ha d always 
expressed a strong interest in developing horizontal domestic regulation  disciplines but was ready 
to engage in discussions on this as well as any other aspect s relating to domestic regulation.  
1.42.   The representative of  Norway  echoed the interventions of t he EU, Canada, Australia and other 
Members which had underlined  that th e proposal was not suited to advancing the discussions.  
1.43.   The repre sentative of  Colombia  thank ed India for the proposal and for the interest in 
reactivating discussions on domestic regulations. His delegation continue d to assess the document 
and was content  to listen to other Members to better understand issues on which  it might be possible 
to reach consensus.  
1.44.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  confirm ed that her delegation  was always 
supportive of the multilateral system and was keen to obtain results on domestic regulation  by MC12. 
India's proposal was still being  assessed in capital and her delegation would  provide its comment s 
in future meetings . Preliminarily, her delegation had some concern s on the issue of  entry visa s and 
procedures on Mode 4  and the limitation of th e proposal to just o ne mode  of supply .  
1.45.   The representative of India thank ed Members for studying the proposal and was grateful 
especially to those Members who ha d engaged with valuable suggestions. Her delegation had 
provided a detailed rational e with regard to the scope of t he proposal in its opening statement s at 
the last meeting, as well as this meeting, as contained in RD/SERV/151 and 152. She had  carefully 
noted all the comments, qu estions, and clarifications raised at today 's meeting. India would  continue 
to engage with Members on this issue and welcome d all constructive discussions to take the process 
forward in the Working Party on Domestic Regulation , which was the body which was mandated to 
develop GATS Article VI:4 disciplines.  
1.46.   The Chairperson  noted that  delegations had raised various issues, relating to the  weight of 
services in the economy, the importance of Mode 4 , and many had voiced strong support for 
multilateral work on domestic regulation ; there had also been s ome hesitancy on foc using on one 
mode of supply. Some delegations had drawn lessons from the negotiating history ; some had 
comment ed on the relation ship of the proposal with the negotiating  mandate. He thought that the 
Working Party had had a good exchange of views on the rev ised communication by India and he 
encourage d India and other interested delegations to explore if any convergence c ould be found. He 
would  consult with delegations on how best to take the discussion and the work of the Working Party 
forward and he invited any delegation that would like to consult to get in touch at any time either 
directly or through the Secretariat. He suggested that t he Working Party take note  of the st atements 
made.  
1.47.   It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B: OTHER BUSINESS  
2.1. No delegation made interventions under this item. The Chairperson  adjourned the meeting . 
 
__________