RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/6 9 
 
 22 December  2016 
(16-0189) Page: 1/10 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 25 NOVEMBE R 2016  
 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working  Party on Domestic  Regulation  (WPDR)  held a meeting  on 25 November  2016 chaired  
by Ms. Katarzyna  Stecz  from Poland.  The agenda  for the meeting  was contained  in document  
WTO/AIR/WPDR/7.  The agenda  was adopted  with the inclusion  of an item under  Other  Business:  
"Statement  by the delegation  of Australia".   
 
1  ITEM A. ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN 
SERVICES (S/WPDR/W/5 6) 
1.1.  Pursuant to the annual reportin g requirements to the Council for Trade in Services (CTS), the 
Chairman  invited Members to adopt the draft annual report contained in document S/WPDR/W/56.  
1.2.  The Working Party adopted  the annual report2. 
2  ITEM B. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIP LINES UNDER GA TS ARTICLE VI:4  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled the exchange that had taken place at the last formal meeting of the 
Working Party in October and suggested to approach the discussion on the two communications on 
the agenda consecutively, beginning with (1) the rev ised proposal on " Administration of Measures " 
by Australia, Chile, Colombia, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Republic of 
Korea, and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
(JOB/SERV/239/Rev.1) dated 31 October 20 16, to be followed by an exchange on (2) the 
Communication from India on " Possible Elements of a Trade Facilitation in Services Agreement " 
(S/WPDR/W/57) dated 14 November 2016.  
2.2.  The Chairperson  provided a short oral summary of the discussion that had taken place on the 
proposal on administration of measures at the informal open -ended meeting of the Working Party 
on 31  October 2016. She recalled that co -sponsors had provided further details on technical 
aspects of their proposal on the administration of measu res, which was intended to be one building 
block towards a more comprehensive outcome on domestic regulation. The proposed "scope" 
provision (paragraph x.x) derived from the 2009/2011 text and had been included to clarify that 
domestic regulation disciplin es were suggested to apply only to sectors in which specific 
commitments were undertaken, and would not impinge on the operation of any scheduled 
limitations. Application of disciplines only to scheduled commitments would impose fewer 
obligations to Member s with fewer commitments, which were frequently developing countries. The 
design of the scope pr ovision hence contained a built -in development  element, and co -sponsors 
were open to discussing other pro -development elements linked to specific obligations.  
2.3.  Proponents underlined that a large number of provisions in the draft contained flexibility 
language, further aiming to increase the acceptability of the proposed disciplines. Several 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own resp onsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 The Annual Report of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation to the Council for Trade in Services 
(2016) was issued as document S/WPDR/16, dated 25 November 2016.  S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 2 - 
 
  delegations had commented on the use of the flexibility language in the p roposal and had sought 
clarification as to the precise level of obligations that was intended. It had also been mentioned 
that care should be taken that the proposed disciplines remained meaningful.  
2.4.  Several delegations had commented on the proposed provis ion of a single window  
(paragraph  x.1). Co -sponsors had explained that the proposal aimed at a single window for 
licenses and qualification. However, if different authorities were responsible for processing 
different authorizations, the proposed provision would not require a single window for all of those 
authoriz ations.  
2.5.  Co-sponsors had further provided more detail on their motivations and suggested language 
for the provisions on timeframes for application (paragraph x.2), and the best endeavour 
obligations  to permit electronic submission of applications, and acceptance of copies in place of 
original documents (paragraph x.3). With regard to processing of applications, co -sponsors had 
seen value in requiring competent authorities to inform applicants of the incompleteness of an 
application (paragraph x.4. (e)).  
2.6.  With regard to the proposed discipline that authorization fees are reasonable and transparent 
(paragraph x.6), several delegations had enquired how the reasonability of fees was to be 
established, and whether the transparency of fees related to their publication or the various 
elements of their composition. Proponents had also reiterated that a discipline to hold 
examinations at reasonably frequent intervals was desirable and would be more effective if 
applicants were allowed a reasonable time for requesting to take the examination (paragraph x.7).  
2.7.  Following her summary, the Chairperson  invited delegations to provide further questions, 
comments and clarifications on the proposal by co -sponsors.  
2.8.  The repre sentative of Bangladesh  stated that some elements of the proposals were difficult 
for LDCs. Regarding the scope of the proposal, he suggested that preferences granted to LDCs 
under the LDC Waiver Decision be included under the sc ope of application of Austr alia's proposal.  
2.9.  The representative of Peru expressed his delegation's desire to achieve ambitious and 
concrete disciplines that complied with the GATS Article VI:4 mandate. Further work should 
proceed on the basis of text -based discussions.  
2.10.   On behalf of t he ACP Group and SVEs, the representative of Barbados  reserved the right to 
revert to the proposal at a later stage. On behalf of Barbados itself, she reiterated the importance 
of development provisions in the final outcome of domestic regulation and any o ther services 
negotiations. She also drew Members’ attention to the 2015 ACP Elements Paper (JOB/TNC/46), in 
particular to the provision allowing for self -designation of transition periods.  
2.11.   The representative of Uganda , speaking on behalf of the LDC group , expressed the view 
that discussions should remain within the framework of the 2009 and 2011 Chair' s Texts agreed ad 
referendum by the membership. In accordance with the 2009 text, he suggested that a provision 
should be included in the proposal to the ef fect that LDCs were not required to comply with the 
disciplines, but only encouraged to do so to the extent compatible with their economic situation. 
He suggested the reduction of regulatory barriers, in particular application fees for visas, licences 
and work permits and asked for his comments to be understood without prejudice to the work that 
was being undertaken under the LDC Waiver Decision.  
2.12.   The representative of Nigeria  limited his intervention to the development aspect of the 
discussion. He recalled  the ACP Elements Paper and expressed interest in seeing some aspects of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement ("TFA") model that could potentially be borrowed for domestic 
regulation discussions. Seeing development elements early on in the discussion would be a 
comforting factor for developing countries. He stressed that challenges of implementation could 
not be overlooked, and therefore capacity building was fundamental for any outcome. It was 
important to address the challenges that developing countries faced  and create an institutional 
framework that would facilitate development aspirations.  
2.13.   The representative of Turkey  stated that her delegation would like to see further work on 
provisions relating to application timeframes (paragraph x.2), electronic applic ations and S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 3 - 
 
  acceptance of copies (paragraph x.3), as some of her domestic agencies, especially those in the 
financial sector, found the proposed wording of these provisions difficult to work with. She 
expressed her delegation’s overall support for the propo sal and willingness to work towards a n 
MC11 outcome.  
2.14.   The representative of Brazil  noted that a proper assessment of the proposal would only be 
possible when all pieces of the puzzle were seen together. It was important to pursue the WPDR 
mandate in its ent irety and to look at what other elements thereof could be brought into the 
discussion. He urged proponents to share other elements soon, so as to be able to reach an 
agreement by MC11 in December 2017.  
2.15.   The representative of Paraguay  echoed Brazil' s point o n the importance of seeing all 
elements of the proposal together and stressed the need to have development provisions.  
2.16.   As one of the co -sponsors of the proposal, the representative of the European Union  
stressed the crucial importance of facilitating acces s of services suppliers through good regulatory 
disciplines and urged delegations to work in a speedier fashion to be able to reach an outcome by 
MC11. His delegation was working on additional new building blocks, including on transparency 
and development of measures, which would be presented in the near future.  
2.17.   The representative of China  expressed support for text -based discussions in accordance with 
the existing mandate of GATS VI:4 and urged the membership to strive for a balanced outcome 
with developme nt provisions at its core. As regards specific provisions, he noted that some of 
China's domestic agencies found language on the single window and the issue of application time 
frames unworkable, in particular the draft provision to accept applications "at  any time". He 
enquired as to the legal implications of the soft law language used in the proposal. He also asked 
for a clarification on the concept of the integrity of authorization process (paragraph x.3. (b) ), 
namely what factors could be used as a just ification to require original documents in the process of 
application. He also requested the Secretariat to provide more details on the flexibility language 
that were beyond the contents of the 2010 Informal background Note by the Secretariat on the 
"Treat ment of Flexibility Language in Dispute Settlement " (JOB/SERV/8). I n particular whether the 
expression "to the extent practicable" meant that Members would be allowed to circumvent the 
obligation if the fulfilment thereof was not practicable from the viewp oint of its domestic laws and 
regulations.  
2.18.   The representative of Egypt  underlined that the strength of development provisions would 
be the benchmark for evaluating any proposals on domestic regulation. He stressed that 
asymmetries in regulation in various  developing countries created a need for more policy space. 
He welcomed the use of flexi bility language and noted Egypt' s financial and capacity constraints as 
an obstacle to adhering to particular disciplines, such as acceptance of applications in electro nic 
format, application fees and others.  
2.19.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  urged Members to further discuss 
flexibility language and provisions relating to the single window, as well as the development 
dimension.  
2.20.   The representative of Thailand underlined the importance of the single window provision as 
it stood and suggested to move the text of the footnote to the main body of the text. He enquired 
whether the reference to the phrase "unless they require original documents to protect the 
integrity of the a uthorization process" in para x.3 (b) had the same meaning as the term "where 
possible” t hat had been used in 2009 Chair' s Text  and urged the proponents to provide some 
examples. Regarding the issue of processing of applications (para. x.4),  Thailand suggested 
making the text a little clearer and enquired if the competent authority still had to inform the 
applicant of its decision without the request from the applicant himself. Echoing a point made by 
China, the representative of Thailand ask ed for a clarification regarding the term "reasonable" in 
the context of application fees (para. x.6), and how the assessment of what was reasonable should 
be made, namely whether it meant the reasonability in terms of costs, as well as whether the 
reasona bleness should be determined from the perspective of the host country, the home country 
of the applicant, or the applicant himself. He expressed his wish to see other elements of the 
proposal, namely transparency, licensing and qualification requirements, as well as development 
provisions.  S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.21.   The representative of Argentina  underlined the importance of seeing all elements of the 
proposals together, as noted before by Brazil and Paraguay.  
2.22.   The representative of New Zealand  reiterated the point made by Argentina  on the 
importance of looking at all parts of the proposal together and indicated that his delegation would 
present a text proposal developed jointly with several other Members on development of 
measures.  
2.23.   The representative of Chile stressed the importance  of fulfilling the full WPDR mandate and 
achieving an outcome at MC11. As one of the proponents, Chile stressed that the proposal on 
administration of measures struck the right balance between ambition and flexibility and was a 
good starting point for furt her work. Chile encouraged delegations to engage more proactively in 
the discussions.  
2.24.   Not being a demandeur  in domestic regulation discussions, the representative of El Salvador  
noted the benefit of a comprehensive text in connection with development provi sions on the basis 
of the 2009 Chair' s Text which had contained the necessary elements for developing countries and 
LDCs. The single window provision (para. x.1) would be difficult for certain domestic authorities to 
abide by. He supported the point made b y Thailand to include the text of the footnote of this 
provision in the main body of the proposal.  
2.25.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  echoed the statement made by 
Barbados and encouraged Members to work for a balanced outcome for MC1 1 and see all parts of 
the outcome together. He underlined potential complications in dealing with the proposed provision 
on the single window (para. x.1) and acceptance of authenticated copies in place of original 
documents in the application process (par a. x.3( b)). He also cautioned against simply transposing 
TFA elements into services and prompted Members to have deeper  discussions on this matter. 
Concern ing development, he pointed out the importance of having country -specific rules promoting 
development , as well as flexibilities and capacity building for developing countries.  
2.26.   The representative of Mexico  underlined the point made by several delegations on the need 
to have a balanced outcome and urged the membership to remember that the existing proposal  
was only part of a wider package. It was paramount to look at cross -cutting disciplines and 
flexibilities in respect of these disciplines. As one of the proponents, she expressed readiness to 
continue clarifying issues relating to the proposal and associa ted herself with the statements made 
by Brazil and the EU.  
2.27.   The representative of Switzerland  stressed the importance of domestic regulation in general 
and text -based negotiations in particular.  
2.28.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  welcomed the long -awaited return to text -based 
negotiations and underlined the importance of pursuing the full WPDR mandate. It was important 
to see the bigger picture, namely other elements of the text -based proposal, and having a 
substantial discussion of those elements. Hon g Kong, China was developing a new joint text 
proposal with New Zealand on development of measures.  
2.29.   The representative of Colombia  supported work on the basis of the full mandate of the 
Working Party and urged others to introduce new proposals that aimed at balanced results. As one 
of the proponents, he noted that the proposal relating to electronic applications (para. x.3) was  
drawn from Colombia' s FTA practice and would facilitate application procedures and help fight 
against corruption.  
2.30.   The representati ve of India expressed the view that in a world where services regulatory 
policies played such an important role, relevant issues should be addressed more comprehensively 
in such a manner that would facilitate trade in services across all modes of supply. H e promised to 
elaborate on this point in more detail later on while presenting India's  Communication on the trade 
facilitation agreement for trade in services.  
2.31.   The representative of Kenya  echoed other Members in saying that the proposal by co -
sponsors was only part of a more comprehensive package that needed to have a strong focus on 
development, be balanced, and take into account interests of different Members.  S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.32.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  supported the point that the proposal was only 
one p iece of the puzzle and noted that his delegation wished to work further on technical 
standards and develo pment.  
2.33.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  acknowledged the essential role of the proposal in 
building a transparent and efficient regulatory environm ent and stressed the importance of 
pursuing the full WPDR mandate and considering relevant parts of the 2009 and 2011 Chair’s 
Texts. Her delegation remained open to discussing development elements.  
2.34.   The representative of Indonesia  welcomed the proposal on a dministration of measures, 
noting that further elements needed to be developed. He was of the view that the provision on the 
ability to submit applications at any time (para. x.2. (a)) would not give Members policy space in 
terms of limiting the number of licences for foreign suppliers in accordance with Members’ 
schedules. He also noted that clarification was needed on the link between requiring original 
documents and domestic law provisions, as enquired previously by China.  
2.35.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  supported views expressed 
previously on development and policy space for developing countries.  
2.36.   The representative of Cuba stressed the importance of development provisions and 
underlined the importance of maintaining Members ' ability to pass regulations in accordance with 
their own domestic laws.  
2.37.   A representative of the Secretariat  stated that the interpretation of flexibility language was 
determined by the context in which the term appeared. For example, the word "should" mean t in 
some cases that a degree of effort had to be demonstrated , while in other cases it did not impose 
such a requirement. In the on -going negotiations on domestic regulation disciplines, Members 
were able to control the interpretation of the specific term s they wished to use through footnotes, 
explanatory notes, or Chair notes that clarified certain aspects of the language. He recalled that 
Chair notes had been used to good effect in the negotiations on basic telecommunications.  
2.38.   The representative of Australia provided several preliminary clarifications on issues raised 
by Members. She stressed the point made by Egypt that services suppliers were indeed facing 
difficulties in tackling regulatory disciplines overseas, hence the relevance of those discipline s for 
SMEs and other services suppliers and the value of negotiating them in the multilateral context. 
On the meaning of the words "integrity of the application process" (para. x.3 (b)), she explained 
that Members might require original documents in cases where they suspected fraud in the 
application process, or experienced problems with particular documents on a repeated basis. She 
was also pleased to hear the suggestion made by Thailand and El Salvador to move the footnote 2 
on the single window provision  into the main body of the text (para. x.1). The purpose of the 
footnote was to provide comfort for Members assuring them that the applicants might still have to 
approach several authorities in cases where the matter lay within the jurisdiction of multiple  
competent authorities. She further stressed that the meaning of integrity in draft provision x.3 (b) 
did not have a connection to domestic laws in this context, as alluded to by several Members, and 
underlined that the proposal dealt with administration o f measures, i.e. how rules were adopted 
and implemented and not the substance of the rules themselves. With regard to Indonesia's 
comments she drew Members'  attention to the scope of application of the proposal (para. x.x), 
namely to the fact that it cover ed only sectors with specific commitments of  Members. She 
welcomed Barbados' s suggestion to l ook at more elements from Chair's Texts and Members'  FTAs 
and indicated that a closer look n eeded to be taken at Bangladesh' s proposal to include the LDC 
Waiver pr eferences in the scope of this proposal. She echoed other Members in their desire to 
draft a solid development component of the final outcome and expressed her thanks to the 
membership for their comments, and especially to New Zealand, the EU and Hong Kong , China for 
their willingness to complement the current proposal with additional proposals in the near future.  
2.39.   The Chairperson  noted the general willingness to constructively engage in discussions on 
the proposal. She would continue consultations with Mem bers and suggested that the Working 
Party take note of the statements made.  
2.40.   It was so agreed .  S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.41.   The Chairperson  suggested to proceed to the discussion on another communication under 
this agenda item, namely the communication from India on " Possible Elements  of a Trade 
Facilitation in Services Agreement " (S/WPDR/W/57) dated 14 November 2016.  
2.42.   The representative of India introduced the C ommunication and focused on several aspects. 
Regarding the scope of application (para. 2.1), India suggested to limit the scop e of the proposal 
generally to measures affecting trade in services in sectors where Members had undertaken 
specific commitments. With regard to some provisions, e.g. on transparency, obligations should 
apply to all measures affecting trade in services irr espective of whether commitments had been 
undertaken. He explained that the proposed provision on publication and availability of information 
(para. 2.2) included requirements to publish all measures of general application and give Members 
opportunities to  provide comments before the entry into force of these requirements, as well as 
notification requirements and requirements to establish contact points  - disciplines which were 
largely drawn from the GATS.  
2.43.   Regarding the paragraph on administration of measu res (para. 2.3), India suggested 
adopting disciplines on fast -tracking authorisation and immigration formalities, as well as including 
provisions on a single window, acceptance of electronic applications, application timeframes, 
expeditious processing of a pplications, appeal and review procedures, information requests etc. 
The elements were drawn largely from the revised proposal on "administration of measures". Fees 
and charges (para. 2.4.) should not be barriers in themselves and should be reasonable and 
commensurate with costs. Another element, namely the administration of scheduled Economic 
Needs Tests (ENTs) (para. 2.5), sought to reduce the restrictive effect of these measures arising 
from their non -transparent implementation, and included clarificatio n on the criteria for ENTs and 
guidelines on their operation. This element was inspired by Turkey's recent proposal on ENTs.  
2.44.   As concerns cross -border data flows (para. 2.6), the proposal suggested that Members 
should not impose barriers on the flow of suc h information, including personal information. This 
element could be developed to include opportunity to negotiate accession to recognition 
arrangements pertaining to data privacy. The proposal on the facilitation of consumption abroad 
(para. 2.7) included  two aspects, namely enabling insurance portability for consumers in mode 2 
trade, and emergency authorizations, namely enabling expedited processes in immigration 
formalities for consumers seeking urgent access to health and medical services abroad. Regar ding 
movement of natural persons (para. 2.8), the provision aimed at ensuring publication of all 
immigration formalities and explanatory materials pertaining to the operation of Members' 
commitments, as well as allowing multiple entry permits and exemption s from payments of 
additional costs and charges, including social security payments. Further, Members should afford 
adequate opportunity to accede to recognition agreements. The proposal on cooperation between 
competent authorities (para. 2.9) included exc hange of information and best practices on 
methodologies on data collection, as well as technical guidance for SMEs. India highlighted the 
importance it attached to special and differential treatment (para. 2.10) and supported the view 
that LDCs should not  be required, but only encouraged to comply with the obligations.  
2.45.   Regarding technical assistance (para. 2.11), India envisaged commitments relating to 
implementation related and other technical assistance by developed and developing countries. The 
last pa ragraph of the proposals was part of the broader ambit of larger institutional cooperation 
(para. 2.12) between relevant agencies in Members.  
2.46.   In response to previously asked questions, regarding the scope and coverage of the 
proposal, he clarified that ma rket access would not be included in the scope of the potential Trade 
Facilitation in Services Agreement ("TFS"); rather , India envisaged that the TFS would give more 
meaning to market access commitments Despite including the issue of data flows in their p roposal, 
India did not intend to narrow or eclipse e -commerce discussions that had a wider ambit. The 
proposal relating to commercial presence did not mean the introduction of non -services related 
investment issues in the proposal at this stage. The develo pment dimension was a crucial element 
of both the concept N ote and the Communication, and India took note of the LDCs' preference for 
the 2009 Chair's Text model. Regarding the appropriate discussion forum, India remained flexible, 
but stressed that TFS wa s a services concept, so the discussion should take place in services 
bodies, namely either WPDR, CTS, or CTS SS. India's proposal aimed to reduce procedural 
bottlenecks and targeted both border and behind the border measures that might inhibit supply of 
services. India intended to work on a detailed textual proposal on the var ious elements from the 
concept N ote and elements Paper.  S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.47.   The representative of Canada  cautioned against being distracted from the practical text -
proposal made by Australia and others.  However, he saw value in pursuing trade facilitation in 
services measures for MC11 to address transparency, streamline procedures and eliminate 
bottlenecks. He noted that Canada was not ready to discuss measures relating to portability of 
health insurance , immigration and social security and asked India to elaborate on how to apply its 
proposed provisions on publication (para. 2.2), administration of measures (para. 2.3), fees and 
charges (para. 2.4) and, importantly, special and differential treatment (pa ra. 2.10) within the 
scope of GATS Article VI:4.  
2.48.   The representative of Barbados  asked to what extent India's trade facilitation for services 
proposal fell under the mandate of GATS Article VI:4. She enquired how elements of the Indian 
communication that c learly fell outside of the WPDR mandate should be treated, e.g. those 
contained in paras. 2.6 ("Facilitating cross -border flow of information") and 2.7. ("Facilitating 
consumption abroad" ). Regarding India' s point on fees and charges, she asked the represe ntative 
of India to explain which FTAs he had been referring to in his introductory comments. She 
expressed concerns about the portability of trade facilitation concepts in general into services 
domestic regulation negotiations and expressed the view that the special and differential treatment 
provision (para. 2.10) in India's proposal looked too vague.  
2.49.   The representative of Ecuador  held the view that the special and differential treatment 
model of the TFA could be an option and stressed the need to simpli fy formalities and remove 
impediments to services trade. He agreed with India that fees and charges and ENTs were major 
obstacles to trade in services. He highlighted the importance of having provisions facilitating 
movement of people. He also suggested pa ying special attention to transparency measures. 
Provisions to facilitate technical assistance for developing countries were an important element of 
a trade facilitation in services agenda.  
2.50.   The representative of South Africa  said that his delegation was s till assessing the 
communication and noted he would revert to it at the next meeting.  
2.51.   The representative of Brazil , referring to para. 2.2. of the proposal, enquired whether the 
possibility to provide comments on draft regulation was the value added of the  proposal to the 
GATS. Regarding the single window provision in para. 2.3, he stated that from Brazil's internal 
policy perspective it would be difficult to implement this provision. He said that Brazil would 
appreciate clarity in terms of whether one sing le window or several single windows were intended 
by the proposal, in particular whether there was a relation betw een the single window and 
para. 2.12. He also suggested borrowing the wording regarding fees and charges from the 
Australian proposal. Regardi ng the provision on data flows, it was not entirely clear to Brazil 
whether data in question was associated with market access and national treatment commitments 
or was seen from the domestic regulation perspective, namely what the conditions for limiting the 
flow of data were. As mentioned beforehand by Canada under para. 2.7, Brazil held that some 
aspects on facilitating consumption abroad might not be doable and requested a clarification on 
the jurisdictional issues relating to the origin of suppliers an d consumers in mode 2. Regarding 
special and differential treatment and technical assistance, he asked whether this provision was 
meant to replicate the TFA solution with certain adaptations.  
2.52.   The representative of Uruguay  noted that her delegation was int erested in having a look at 
concrete and substantive proposals and welcomed certain elements of India's proposal, such as 
the streamlining of procedures, removing of obstacles and facilitating of e -commerce.  
2.53.   The representative of the European Union  welcome d the Indian paper as a useful 
contribution to the on -going domestic regulation discussion. By stressing the importance of 
transparency and addressing other important issues, such as simple and transparent 
administration of measures, fees and charges and c ooperation among competent authorities , the 
paper confirmed the  value of developing disciplines according to GATS Article VI:4. He 
acknowledged that the paper went further than the mandate of GATS Article VI:4 and expressed 
willingness to work on those oth er elements, however, similarly to Canada, cautioned against 
bringing immigration procedures (including multiple entry visas), social security and health 
insurance portability issues into the discussion. Instead the EU saw more value in developing 
aspects that would generate consensus and could indeed facilitate trade in services. The EU 
remained flexible on both the format and the forum of the discussion but noted that non -domestic 
regulation elements would be better placed for discussion in CTS SS, rather  than in WPDR. Even S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 8 - 
 
  though the representative of the EU did consider the TFA model valuable and promising, he noted 
that there was no reason to work towards a formal "Agreement" that would trigger lengthy 
discussions on mandate and scope. Rather, delegatio ns might be better served to focus on the 
substance of the discussion. The EU held that the Indian proposal could provide a valuable 
umbrella for encapsulating issues relating to trade in services on which Members should work 
collectively by MC11 and possi bly beyond.  
2.54.   The representative of Mexico  supported the provision on publication and availability of 
information (para 2.2), especially the possibility to comment on draft legislation and expressed a 
desire to discuss the matter in more detail. As regards the single window provision, Mexico 
suggested drawing inspiration from the Australian proposal and stated that it needed more 
discussion. Concerning fees and charges (para. 2.4), Mexico advocated reasonable, transparent 
and commensurate fees, as incurred b y competent authorities. Mexico expressed readiness to 
continue discussing data flow provisions (para. 2.6), and noted that the proposal went beyond 
what had been discussed before. Regarding the portability of health insurance, Mexico 
acknowledged the impo rtance of the provision for the health and medical services sectors  
(para.  2.7). Regarding provisions facilitating the movement of natural persons (para. 2.8), Mexico 
recognised the value added of the proposal in this respect.  
2.55.   The representative of Norway  noted that the Indian proposal was mainly concerned with the 
important matters of transparency and good governance. She noted that matters related to 
movement of natural persons were sensitive for her delegation. As stated before by Canada and 
the EU, Nor way was not comfortable discussing the issues of health insurance portability and social 
security (para. 2.7). Regarding the issue of cross -border data flows and hence , inevitably , digital 
trade and e -commerce, Norway was of the view that those issues rela ted mostly to B2B E -
commerce, in particular security and consumer protection. It was therefore valuable from 
Norway’s perspective to hear India' s views on how to separate those discussions. She enquired 
whether technical assistance and development provisio ns would be contingent upon implementing 
the commitments, in line with the TFA model.  
2.56.   The representative of Switzerland  welcomed the return to text -based negotiations and 
voiced the wish to have a clear view of all elements of the proposal, especially beca use some of 
those had not been discussed before and were not ripe for discussions, as opposed to some others 
that already had texts on them, e.g. the previous Chairs ' Texts. He also enquired as to the 
difference between "border" and "behind the border" mea sures in the case of trade in services, as 
there were no customs duties and border inspections.  
2.57.   The representative of Australia  drew Members ' attention to the question of the WPDR 
mandate, namely to the fact that only par t of element 2.3 of the Indian C ommunication was within 
the scope of GATS Article VI:4, hence that element was the only one eligible for discussion in the 
WPDR. She asked for clarification whether the intended scope of application of the Indian paper 
was limited  to Members'  specific commitm ents only, or covered as well limitations in Members' 
schedules, which would be a more ambitious scope than that of the proposal on administration of 
measures. As regards the forum for discussion, Australia was happy with either CTS, or CTS SS.  
2.58.   The represe ntative of China  underlined the fact that even though China generally supported 
the exploration of various domestic regulation elements, including mode 4 issues, the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Decision of 2005 stated that Members should develop elements accordi ng to GATS 
Article VI:4 mandate. As regards publication of measures of general application, China expressed 
hopes to find better solutions to tackling regulatory obstacles to services trade via all modes of 
supply and noted that his delegation was flexible  regarding the forum of the discussion. China was 
willing to continue working for achieving progress by MC11. Regarding para. 2.2, China suggested 
that the proponents of the two proposals on the table might coordinate their positions to find 
common ground.  With regard to the mode 2 element in  para. 2.7 , he noted that the GATS imposed 
requirements on service importing Members to provide certain treatment to foreign suppliers, 
rather than on a service providing Members to provide certain treatment to foreign consumers. 
Discussing expedited immigration formalities by the host country might widen the scope of the 
proposal. He also suggested distinguishing between feasible "hard law" and best endeavour, i.e. 
"soft law" provisions that might be helpful in various provisions. Regarding special and differential 
treatment, China wanted to see more detailed provisions and considered them to be of vital 
importance, especially for LDCs and SVEs.  S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.59.   The representative of Uganda, on behalf of the LDC group , recalled certain e lements 
pertaining to regulatory measures that were contained in the LDC collective request, in particular 
on social security payments and fees and charges. He noted that India had been the only Member 
that had removed visa fees for LDCs in the context of the LDC waiver preferences. Noting that 
some elements of the proposal went beyond the WPDR mandate, Uganda enquired whether India 
intended to widen the scope of the discussion in the WPDR. He asked which bilateral FTAs India 
was referring to as inspiration  for its proposal. He expressed his wish to maintain language from 
the 2009 Chair' s text, namely allow LDCs to comply with their obligations only to the extent 
compatible with their special economic situation.  
2.60.   The representative of Egypt  welcomed the scop e of application of the proposal that was 
limited to Members' specific commitments, with an understanding that some obligations would also 
apply to all services sectors. He also noted that the TFA did not reflect the right to regulate.  
2.61.   The representative o f the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  informed the membership that her 
capital was still analysing the proposal and acknowledged the positive impact of the proposal.  
2.62.   The representative of Argentina  shared observations on some elements of the proposal: as 
regards t ransparency and specifically the opportunity to comment on draft measures before their 
entry into force (para. 2.2), he pointed out that national standards should be considered, 
specifically those on enquiry points, as they differed from Member to Member. He noted that it was 
difficult to separate the issues of services and investment in the context of the single window 
provision (para 2.3). As far as time frames were concerned, he noted that some political aspects 
could make this provision difficult. Regar ding cross -border flow of data, even though the issue was 
dealt with differently across Members, the accurate level of protection should be assured.  
2.63.   The representative of New Zealand  echoed Canada and Norway's statements regarding 
immigration formalities and health insurance portability, which would also be difficult to discuss for 
his delegation. Regarding the forum for discussion, he agreed with Australia and the European 
Union that the elements that lay outside the scope of the WPDR should be discussed in CTS and 
CTS SS.  
2.64.   The representative of Colombia  considered that certain elements of the Indian proposal 
appeared to lay outside the Work ing Party' s mandate, in particular aspects relating to paras. 2.3 
and 2.4.  
2.65.   The representative of Turkey  invited India to submit a text proposal to facilitate work 
towards an outcome at MC11. Turkey was not in favour of excluding any elements a priori  from 
the scope of the proposal and believed that it would be very constructive if India could incorporate 
the Australian pr oposal into the text of their proposal.  
2.66.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  encouraged India to pursue non -domestic 
regulation elements of the proposal in other fora, such as the CTS.  
2.67.   The representative of India thanked Members for their comments and qu estions and 
indicated that his delegation would seek to develop its textual proposal as soon as possible. His 
delegation would undertake bilateral consultations to provide individual comments to Members’ 
concerns.  
2.68.   The Chairperson  invited delegations to tak e note of the statements made.  
2.69.   It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C. FUTURE WORK AND TIMING OF THE NE XT MEETING  
3.1.  The Chairperson  suggested that she would hold consultations on the timing of the next 
meeting and inform Members in due course.  
3.2.  It was so agreed . 
 S/WPDR/M/ 69 
 
- 10 - 
 
  4  ITEM D. O THER BUSINESS  
4.1.  The representative of Australia , referring to a Room Document on Domestic Regulation – 
Technical Standards (RD/SERV/136), considered that technical standards were one of the least 
understood areas of domestic regulation and suggested organisi ng an information exchange 
among interested Members. She further suggested inviting a representative of the International 
Standards Organisation (ISO) to update the Working Party on their recent work on services 
standards, namely on how standards were deve loped, how stakeholders were involved, and what 
the experiences in relation to implementation and conformity assessment were.  
4.2.  The representatives of Canada , China  and Colombia  welcomed the idea to engage in the 
voluntary information exchange on the subject  of technical standards. The delegations of Nigeria , 
Turkey , Argentina , Mexico , New Zealand , Chile, Peru and Panama  registered their interest in the 
proposal and expressed the wish to discuss the matter further. The representative of Turkey  noted 
that her delegation would reflect in capital and revert to the matter at the next WPDR meeting.  
4.3.  The Chairperson  invited delegations to take note of the statements made.  
4.4.  It was so agreed . 
__________