RESTRICTED  
  
S/CSC/M/71  
 
15 October 2014  
(14-5898) Page: 1/5  
 
Committee on Specific Commitments    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 18 SEPTEMBER 2014 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 18 September 2014, chaired by 
Mr. Felipe Sandoval Zamorano from Chile. The agenda for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/4348, was adopted. 
 
1  ITEM A - CLASSIFICATION ISSUES 
1.1.  The Chairman recalled that at the Committee's last meeting, a number of delegations had 
expressed their interest in having discussions on  the issue of "new services" and had suggested 
some specific examples for debate. It had been agreed that as a starting point, the Secretariat would compile an illustrative list of services identified in previous discussions as not being explicitly 
referred to in document W/120. The Secretariat had therefore prepared such a list without 
prejudice to Members' positions, which had been circulated to Members in document JOB/SERV/189. Although the term of "new servic es" had been repeatedly mentioned in previous 
discussions, it had never been clarified in what se nse a service should be considered "new". This 
was a fundamental question because "new" was always a relative concept. It was also important to 
be aware of the implications of "new services" for specific commitments, i.e. why Members had the 
discussion on this issue. This was not a topic contingent on the negotiation process, but worth 
Members' consideration and contribution.  
1.2.  A representative of the Secretariat indicated that the Note was based on Members' 
contributions from previous discussions. The services listed therein were grouped under the 
sector(s) to which they might be closely related.  A summary of previous discussions was provided 
whenever possible. By way of introduction, the No te provided a brief background on the issue of 
"new services" as previously raised by Members. As part of the background, the Note also referred 
to the definition of new services adopted in the Understanding on Financial Services and some 
preferential trade agreements. At the end, the Note suggested a number of general questions for 
Members' consideration. He noted that the definitional approach used in financial services, which was based on jurisdiction, might not be sufficient fo r the definition of "new services" in general or 
in other sectors as that approach was specific for financial services. He also drew attention to 
some fundamental questions raised in the Note, such as what a "new service" meant, how to 
distinguish a new means of delivery or supply of services from a genuinely new service, whether 
the absence of a service in the classification me ant the service was new, and the implications of 
"new services" for the existing commitments. The discussion would be not only intellectually interesting, but also important for the GATS. 
1.3.  The representative of Canada thanked th e Secretariat for the Note which brought forward 
previous discussions in the Committee. Rather than  exploring each of the sectors covered by the 
Note, he addressed the questions raised by the Secretariat in general terms. Any exploration of classification issues in this Committee should not undermine Members’ existing commitments. 
Truly new services were very rare if they existed at all. Most of the services described in the Note 
were combinations of existing services or were existing services delivered through a new medium. All of the services listed in the Note were captured in the CPC, as were all services thanks to the 
"Other services" categories. The GATS did not need a definition for "new services". "New services" 
were defined in the Financial Services Understanding, because the Understanding included a new 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. S/CSC/M/71 
 
- 2 - 
 
  services obligation. The GATS did not include such  an obligation. This discussion illustrated the 
value of a negative-list approach to services liberalization.  
1.4.  The representative of Turkey highly appr eciated the Secretariat’s work in compiling an 
illustrative list of services as a starting point for the Committee to consider the issue of "new 
services". Her delegation had thought of the ge neral questions suggested by Secretariat and had 
some findings with respect to "new services". First of all, the most important question was whether a definition of "new services" was needed. To her delegtion, the answer was yes. It was obvious 
that the services specified in the Secretariat Note as well as for other services without clear entries 
in CPC and W/120, were treated as residual "other" categories in negotiations. While the use of these mentioned classifications depended on the choice of countries and was not mandatory, a classification was always necessary as a basis for scheduling commitments. She noted that 
countries reserved their right to adopt or maintain any measure relating to new services especially 
in agreements with the negative list approach. But this was protectionist and would harm the main potential supporting mechanism of RTAs. In addition, all these newly emerging services were 
results of and reasons for global value chains. Whether they were called "new services" or 
anything else, it was necessary to find a place for them. In this context, Turkey strongly encouraged all Members to actively contribute and the Secretariat to prepare a more detailed 
technical study as an extension to the prepared illustrative list. On the other hand, it might be 
needed to reflect on a new reference list for negotiations, which would be better suited to 
economic realities of trade in services. A service activity's intrinsic characteristics should determine 
its allocation to one category or another in the classification. 
1.5.  The representative of the United States noted that the CPC was a system of categories 
covering both goods and services, which was exhaustive and mutually exclusive. Everything that 
could be the object of transaction was covered by the CPC. Services that could not be classified in 
accordance with the above rules should be classified under the appropriate categories to which 
they were most akin. So the CPC did cover all serv ices, and people needed to find out where they 
fell. The question about the implications of "new services" for the scheduling of specific 
commitments was not necessarily the right one to ask at this time. More important was the 
implications of "new services" for the existing commitments. He agreed with the Chairman that 
"new" was a relative concept. The key point was that there was no definite answer to what might be a new service. There was no point of classifying "new services" as a way to weaken existing 
commitments. Referring to other questions in the Note, he indicated that the services listed could 
be accommodated in the existing classification system, that the existing commitments should not be undermined and that a definition of "new services" was not needed under the GATS. The 
implications of "new services" for the existing co mmitments would be for a dispute panel to decide. 
Regarding the issue of convergence raised in the Note, it did not matter if the market was fully open; however, in cases where one area was open and the other restricted, it was not trade-
enhancing if the converged services, so-called "new services", were classified into the restrictive 
area. So it was better to undertake commitments in  both areas to avoid such problem. The best 
approach was to make commitments based on the negative list approach, particularly for national treatment. 
1.6.  The representative of the European Unio n welcome in-depth discussions on classification 
issues. The question he addressed was whether some services that might not exist when 
commitments had been undertaken could be captured by the classification used for scheduling 
commitments. Two fundamental principles needed to  be borne in mind in this regard. One was 
that GATS commitments were subject to a positi ve description of sectors. When considering 
classification, the key issue was the sectoral description of commitments and the ability to 
interpret that description. The second principle was that there was no mandatory classification of 
services in the WTO. As a result, despite W/120 and the CPC, there was a huge variation among schedules in terms of classification, which entailed different commitments at the same level. In addition, the residual "other" categories in the classification might also capture a lot of services.  
The forthcoming work should be focused on how to develop classification tools which would be 
future-proof, allowing the description of sectors to translate the technological neutrality of the GATS. He noted that most of the examples in the Secretariat Note could be addressed by the 
existing tools such as W/120 and CPC or addition al tools used by some Members. For instance, 
cloud computing was a computer service: the fact that the service was delivered in another manner (e.g. storage of data application in a server located in another country) did not change 
what was provided to the final consumer and the substance remained a computer service. Some 
services were provided to enable the technology  of cloud computing, such as telecommunication S/CSC/M/71 
 
- 3 - 
 
  services. But this did not change the nature of th e service received by the final consumer either. 
The Understanding on Computer and Related Services was a very useful and dynamic tool of classification covering all modes of delivery. Concerning the issue of business models, his delegation was of the view that the business mode l did not change the types of service delivered 
and that the nature of the service should be th e one that was defined in the commitments. There 
were also tools that allowed for the distinction between transmission of information and the provision of content, such as the EU classifi cation of telecommunication services and the 
Understanding on Computer and Related Servic es which distinguished enabled from enabling 
services. The examples of environm ent services listed in the Secretariat Note would fit neatly into 
the "other" environmental protection services. His delegation did not think that a cut-off date would be a useful tool for classification as services were defined by their nature, not according to a 
specific date. There was no need for a category  of "new services", which created unnecessary 
confusion.   
1.7.  The representative of China thanked the Se cretariat for this very insightful and thought-
provoking document. The classification of "new se rvices" was a very important and relevant topic, 
especially against the background of rapi d advancement of technology and constant 
transformation of business models. Therefore, it was an area worthy of more discussion and 
deeper analysis. China noted the fact that most Members were still using the CPC Provisional to 
define services, which was a document dating back to 1991. Since then, more than twenty years had passed and there had been several updates of the CPC. In certain cases, one particular service might fall into different categories due to the updates of the classification system. In this regard, 
China suggested that the Secretariat provide a more in-depth analysis and relevant examples in 
order to better inform the current discussion. Such  analysis would be purely intellectual and of 
technical nature and should not have legal implications for the understanding of Members’ current 
commitments. China reserved the right to come back to this document with more detailed 
comments at the next meeting. 
1.8.  The representative of Australia thanked the Secretariat for undertaking this comprehensive 
analysis to develop an illustrative list of "Services Without Explicit References in the W/120" as 
well as the detailed considerations involved in determining whether something was a new service, or simply a new means of delivering an existing service. The Secretariat Note also posed some useful questions for Members to consider further. The introductory part of the Note also addressed 
new financial services. Australia subscribed to the WTO Understanding on financial services and 
the definition of "new financial services" contained within it.
 In responding to the Secretariat Note, 
Australia wished to share its experiences in addressing "new services" in its FTAs, given one of the 
questions posed in the Secretariat Note was abou t the use of reservations for "new services". 
Australia recognised that this could be an area of some concern for Members less familiar with the negative list approach. Australia had commitments on new services in its FTAs dating back more 
than 20 years. In its negative list FTAs, Australia had not included any kind of reservation for "new 
services", or for "other services" categories in the provisional CPC list.  Australia had not encountered any difficulties in undertaking commitments. Commitments that incorporated innovative services had not prevented Australia from any policy or regulatory changes. Australia 
had thought over "new services" before agreeing to its trade commitments and decided that it did 
not need a reservation for new services, believing that sensitivities could be sufficiently addressed 
through more specific policy space reservatio ns. This was even less of an issue in trade 
commitments that followed a positive list approach as under the GATS, since Members were not 
automatically committed to market access for "new services". Concerning the distinction between 
new services and new modes of service delivery, Australia had not come up with a service that 
could not fit into the existing classifications under the CPC Provisional. Australia also had not come 
up with an example where commitments including new services would be problematic. There was 
no need to define "new services" in a broad sense and "new services" could not be usefully defined in the absence of a particular context. Any definition would be dependent on the context of a 
particular negotiation, as shown by the example of the Understanding on Commitments on 
Financial Services which provided a particular definition tailored to that negotiation and that sector. The issues raised in the Secretariat Note in paragraph 1.2 also tended to illustrate that 
"new services" might be rarer than people might think: there should be a distinction between a 
new means of delivery and a genuinely new service; the fact that a service was not listed in the CPC did not make it automatically a "new" service; and a technology-neutral approach to the 
identification of new services should be based on the end-use. S/CSC/M/71 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.9.  The representative of India thanked the Secr etariat for their efforts in preparing the informal 
Note on "Services Without Explicit References in the W/120". The Note was being analysed in her 
capital. While awaiting detailed comments, she wanted to share some preliminary thoughts on the issue. The informal Note raised several exciting questions which could be divided into two broad 
sets of issues. The first related to the definition  of new services, characteristics of new services 
and whether these could be accommodated in the existing classification. And the second related to the implications of new services for existing commitments. As expected, on both these issues there 
seemed to be no agreement amongst the membership. However, while discussing the second set 
of questions, Members needed to be very ca reful and should not ascribe any particular 
interpretation to the existing commitments. W/120 which was the basis for classifying services and undertaking commitments was itself based on the 1991 CPC Provisional. Thus, it would not be 
wrong to interpret W/120 as classifying those servic es that had existed at the time CPC Provisional 
was devised. Services which did not exist at that po int of time like social networking services or 
search engine services thus were not mentione d in the CPC or W/120. The CPC itself was not a 
static classification but an evolving and dynamic one. Later revisions of the CPC not only covered 
existing services in greater detail but also included new services that had not existed at a particular point in time. Thus, it appeared that while considering whether a service was new or 
not, one needed to examine whether it had existed at a particular point in time and whether it had 
been mentioned as such in the existing classification. She was not sure whether a definition of new services under the GATS was needed. It was not certain either whether a new or unusual business model would make a service sufficiently new. The business model approach would change the 
entire basis of classification which so far had been based on the CPC, a product-based 
classification classifying products based on the phys ical characteristics of goods or on the nature of 
the services rendered. The other important issue th at needed to be discussed was the scope of the 
residual category "other" in the various servic e sectors in the W/120 and its bearing on this 
discussion on new services.  
1.10.  The representative of Indonesia appreciated the Secretariat's efforts in gathering 
information and preparing the document. Indone sia found it thought-provoking and highly 
interesting, especially due to the fact that these so called "new services" were particularly important for Indonesia. Indonesia was among the largest users of Internet and social media in the world, thus the discussion on "new services " which were strongly related to the Internet 
services would be highly relevant to it. His capital was looking closely at the document, especially 
the implications of "new services" for existing commitments and policy space to develop service sectors. Acknowledging the complicated nature of "new services", Indonesia was ready to engage 
in any discussions on this matter in the future. 
1.11.  The representative of South Africa thanked the Secretariat for compiling the Note 
(JOB/SERV/189) which was insightful in assistin g future discussions on the subject of "new 
Services". As contribution in this regard, her delegation addressed a number of general questions 
posed in the Secretariat Note. Regarding the first question on whether "new services" were sufficiently covered by the existing GATS classifica tion system, South Africa was of the view that 
the existing classification system was limited in terms of specific coverage and therefore might not 
adequately capture new services. It was certain that there were new services that were not 
explicitly mentioned in the existing GATS classification (W120 + CPC Provisional). However, as all W/120 services sectors had an "Other" category (except R&D and real estate services), it could be 
argued that at least all new services were covered. These "other services" could, without a major 
structural change, accommodate "new services" where they were not adequately covered by existing classification. Concerning the definition of "new services", South Africa considered it to be 
necessary. It supported the points made by de legations during previous discussions on "new 
services" that the fundamental characteristics of a "new service" should constitute the following 
elements: there should be a clear distinction between a new means of delivery and a genuinely new service; that a service was not listed in the CPC did not make it automatically a "new 
service"; and a technology-neutral approach to the identification of new services. Any new service 
should be defined in such a way that it had no implications for an existing commitment. If it did, it could imply that it was not really a new service. South Africa suggested that the Secretariat could 
complement the illustrative list of the types of services not explicitly referred to in W/120 with 
possible definitions for such services. Where poss ible they could supplement this with data or 
statistics that attempted to capture more explicit ly the on-going trade in these "new services" 
among Members. S/CSC/M/71 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.12.  The Chairman noted divergent views on a number of issues such as whether there existed 
"new services", whether a definition of "new services" was needed, and the implications of "new 
services" for existing commitments. He also noted the reference to the negative list approach which was not used in the GATS context as well as the suggestions for further work by the 
Secretariat. While indicating that he would hold consultations on the last point, he invited the 
Secretariat to respond.  
1.13.  A representative of the Secretariat reiter ated that there was no mandatory classification 
under the GATS. What was important was to make sure the description of services in schedules, 
i.e. the scope of commitments, was as clear as possible. Referring to a Services Council document on e-commerce in 1990s, he noted that the principle of technological neutrality had been established for quite some time. Concerning the suggestions for further work by the Secretariat, 
he supported the Chairman's suggestion to hold  consultations on how to move forward.  
1.14.  The representative of the United Stat es also supported the Chairman's suggestion 
concerning the proposals for further work to be done by the Secretariat. 
1.15.  The representative of China clarified that th e Secretariat's analysis on the evolution of CPC, 
suggested by his delegation, was purely technical and should not have any implications for China's 
GATS commitments. 
1.16.  Noting that the interventions by Members so far were preliminary, the representative of the 
European Union suggested that the Committee could continue with the current discussion. 
Concerning the proposals for further work to be do ne by the Secretariat, he echoed the statement 
by the United States. 
1.17.  The Chairman suggested that he would hold  consultations with Members on how to proceed 
with the discussion, including the proposals for furthe r work to be done by the Secretariat. He also 
suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to this item at its next 
meeting.  
1.18.  It was so agreed.  
2   ITEM B - SCHEDULING ISSUES 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that there had been no substantive discussion on scheduling issues in 
the past two or three years. Th i s  m i g h t  b e  d u e  t o  l a c k  o f  p r o g r e s s  i n  D D A  n e g o t i a t i o n s .  H e  
remained open to any ideas or suggestions.  
2.2.  There was no intervention under this item. 
2.3.  The Chairman suggested that the Committee revert to this item at its next meeting.  
2.4.  It was so agreed.  
3   ITEM C - OTHER BUSINESS 3.1.  There was no intervention under this it em. The Chairman then adjourned the meeting.  
 
__________