RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/125/Add.1  
 
8 July 2016  
(16-3703)  Page: 1/9  
Council for Trade in Goods    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
11 MAY 2016 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. MR. HAMISH McCORMICK (AUSTRALIA) 
Addendum 
In a fax dated 4 May 2016, addressed to all Heads of Delegations, the Chairperson announced that 
the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) would re convene its meeting on Wednesday, 11 May 2016, 
to deal with Agenda Item No. 3 in WTO/AIR/CTG/4 and G/C/W/723, "Appointment of Officers to 
the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods".  3. APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SUBS IDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS 
3.1.  The Chairperson recalled to delegations that, at the last CTG meeting, on 15 April 2016, his 
predecessor, Ambassador Héctor Casanueva from Chile, announced the suspension of Agenda 
Item No. 3 concerning the "Appointment of Officers to the Subsidiary Bodies of the Council for 
Trade in Goods" given the lack of agreement on the proposed slate of names for Chairpersons of 
the CTG's subsidiary bodies. At that meeting it was agreed that consultations should continue on 
this issue. He offered the floor to Ambassador Ca sanueva to report on the further consultations 
that took place. 
3.2.  The erstwhile Chairperson recalled that he  had conducted two rounds of consultations with 
interested delegations, on 19 and 20 April 2016. He  likewise recalled that the current CTG Chair, 
Ambassador McCormick, had himself conducted th ree additional rounds of consultations. In 
connection with this process, he delivered the following statement with the request that it be inserted, as delivered, in the minutes of this reconvened meeting: 
"Members will recall that the Guidelines fo r the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies 
contained in WT/L/510 were considered genera lly adequate and reaffirmed in the Statement 
by the Chairman of the General Council at the meeting held on 25-26 July 2012 contained in 
JOB/GC/22 dated 27 July 2012. Consensus is th e principle for any final decision-making in 
this Organization. Therefore, respecting Members' sensitivities should be a guiding principle. The preamble of the guidelines provides for their review by the General Council 'in light of experience as necessary'. 
 
Since then, the interest in chairing committees appears to have increased. A number of issues have been raised in my consultations which suggest that more clarity will be useful 
for the implementation of the guidelines. Such clarity is clearly a matter of concern to the 
membership as a whole given the Guidelines are applicable to all WTO bodies. 
 
One area where questions have been raised is  the principle of rotation where a regional 
grouping provides two competing candidates to chair a WTO committee. Some Members have suggested that there is a need to cons ider further how to apply the principle of 
rotation. For example, a situation has arisen wh ere the principle of group rotation has been 
strictly adhered to in the previous cycles of  appointments to this committee and one of the 
two Members had previously chaired the committee in question when it was last allocated to the regional grouping. 
 G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  In discussions held during my consultations, Members have raised some specific aspects of 
the guidelines that may benefit from more clarity, including: country rotation, group rotation and level-of-development rotation. Members have also recalled that the issue of nationality rotation has been previously raised during the General Council meeting held on 
25-26 July 2012 contained in WT/GC/M/137 dated 13 September 2012. 
 
Given that these matters concern all WTO bodies and since Members generally agreed that 
the guidelines lack clarity, I request the Chair of this Council to agree to report the concerns 
raised in the CTG at the next General Council meeting due to be held on 12 May 2016, and I recommend that the guidelines be reviewed before the beginning of the next cycle of 
appointments." 
 
3.3.  Finally, he indicated that, following this intensive process, he believed that the Chairperson was now in a position to propose to the Goods Council the adoption of the slate of names that he 
had prepared, which were circulated by him to delegations in a Fax dated 5 April 2016, and that he 
had read out during the informal meeting of this Council on 15 April 2016, and to which he had then referred at the subsequent formal meeting. 
3.4.  The Chairperson thanked his predecessor for his report and comments, and in particular for 
the time and effort that he had invested in the election process in order for this agenda item to be 
concluded. 
3.5.  The names of Chairpersons for the subsidiary  bodies prepared by his predecessor and that he 
himself proposed to the Council were as follows: 
Chairpersons of CTG Subsidiary Bodies 
Market Access Ms Hanna Olsen BODSBERG (Norway) 
Agriculture Mr Garth EHRHARDT (Canada) 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Meas ures Ms Marcela OTERO (Chile) 
Technical Barriers to Trade Ms Esther PEH (Singapore) 
TRIMs Ms Marine WILLEMETZ (Switzerland) 
Anti-Dumping Practices Mr Peira SHANNON (Australia) 
Subsidies and Countervailing Meas ures Mr Jin-dong KIM (Korea) 
Safeguards Mr Yugsong CHEN (China) 
Import Licensing Mr Tapio PYYSALO (Finland) 
Rules of Origin Mr Chin-Tung CHANG (Chinese Taipei) 
Customs Valuation Dr Yasser KORANI (Egypt) 
State Trading Enterprises Ms Yeili RANGEL PEÑARANDA (Colombia) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade 
in Information Technology Products (ITA Committee) Ms Zsofia TVARUSKO (Hungary) 
 
3.6.  He proposed that the Council agree with the nominations read out. 
3.7.  The Council so agreed. 
3.8.  The Chairperson observed that, on the ques tion of Vice-Chairpersons, his understanding was 
that, in cases where the option existed under the Ag reement or rules of procedure, it would be for 
the subsidiary bodies themselves to decide if th ey needed a Vice-Chair, and that it was for the 
respective Chair to hold the necessary consultations. He asked if the Council could proceed on this basis. 
3.9.  The Council so agreed. G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.10.  The Chairperson then recalled that, while al l the other subsidiary bodies of the Council had 
provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure requiring them to elect 
Chairpersons, Working Parties did not. As a result, he proposed that the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson for the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises. 
3.11.  The Council so agreed. 
3.12.  The Chairperson thanked Members for their patience, and delegations involved in the 
consultations for their flexibility and constructive spirit. He especially thanked the outgoing 
Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of this Co uncil for their hard work and dedication during 
2015 and congratulated the Chairs for 2016 for thei r nomination and wished them success in 
fulfilling their tasks. 
3.13.  The delegate of Oman requested that the following statement be included, as delivered, in 
the minutes of this reconvened meeting: 
"We would like to thank you for your tireless efforts and hard work during the bilateral and 
small group consultations that you held over the last two weeks to reach agreement on the 
slate of names proposed this year. We also appreciate the erstwhile Chair's efforts in the 
consultations he has undertaken and thank him for his reports on Members' views, his assessment of the issues, and his recommendations going forward. We agree with his 
statement. In this regard, Oman would like to make its position known in respect of certain 
aspects of the appointment process and to have its views reflected on the record. 
 
We note that there is an increased interest by Members to chair committees. This trend has 
called into question some aspects of the appoin tment process; in particular the principle of 
rotation as contained in paragraph 1.1 of the guidelines, where it provides in relevant part: 'Members should regard the appointments exercise as a relatively routine annual 
"housekeeping" function, with the principle of rotation as its norm'. 
 
This year the membership was confronted with a sui generis  situation in relation to 
one committee appointment, specifically the Chairmanship of the Committee on Technical 
Barriers to Trade. Over the last five years, the appointment process for this committee has strictly adhered to rotation between regional groups. In other words, each regional group has had a turn in chairing the committee during this period. In the current year, a question 
arose about how the principle of rotation should  be interpreted in the following situation: a 
regional group whose turn it was to chair the committee in question did not reach consensus 
on a single nomination, instead providing two candidates who were equally qualified. One of 
the two competing candidates represented a Member who had chaired the same committee 
the last time it was allocated to the regional group. 
 
In Oman's view, assuming all things are equal, the principle of rotation should operate so as 
to give priority to the Member who has neve r had a chance in chairing the committee. Any 
other interpretation would frustrate the essence of this principle, as it could render the absurd outcome of the chairpersonship be ing granted to the same Member every 
consecutive five-year cycle. Surely, the principl e of rotation as it currently exists in the 
guidelines would preclude such an outcome? We were concerned that any other application 
of this rule, if left unchecked, would create a negative precedent. Moreover, we consider 
that the guidelines appeal to the common sense of experienced WTO delegates and should 
be observed in that light. It is important to reiterate that consensus is the general rule for decision making in this Organization and Member s' sensitivities must therefore be respected. 
This has been Oman's position from the outset. 
 
On 19 and 20 April, informal consultations we re held by the erstwhile Chair where an 
exchange of views took place on this matter. These consultations were attended by 
coordinators of the regional groups and a number of developed country Members. They 
generated interesting results. Firstly, it was evident that Members had divergent views on the interpretation of the principle of rotation as contained in the guidelines, particularly on 
the extent to which it includes country rotation, group rotation, and level-of-development 
rotation. Secondly, Members agreed that these divergent views signalled a need to review the guidelines to obtain clarity on this matter. 
 G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Concerns about the appointment process are not new. They have been consistently raised in 
this Council. To cite some examples: 
 
At the CTG meeting held on 23 March 2010 (I refer to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 
26 March 2010, contained in G/C/M/101). Under Agenda item 3 on the appointment of 
officers to CTG subsidiary bodies, a Member expressed disappointment with the appointment process, noting that it was requested to be flexible ' … while other Members had occupied 
and continued to occupy various chairs, council s, committees and other negotiating groups'. 
It further requested that the process ' … clearly and transparently establish the criteria to be considered for chairmanships' and questioned the criteria that were used at the time. 
 
At the CTG meeting held on 11 March 2008 (I refer to the Minutes of the Meeting dated 
14 April 2008, contained in G/C/M/92). Under Agen da item 7 on the appointment of officers 
to chair CTG subsidiary bodies, a Member highlighted the existence of cases where the same 
delegations retained the posts in subsequent terms and where a Member's staff might be 
appointed to chair the body simultaneously . The Member expressed the view that the 
responsibility of chairing bodies should be shared widely and fairly among Members. 
 
Concerns about the appointment process have also been raised at the General Council as recently as last year in respect of appointments to the major bodies. At the General Council Meeting held on 20 February 2015 (Minutes of the Meeting contained in 
WT/GC/M/156), a Member coordinator of a regi onal group expressed its deepest sense of 
displeasure with the outcome of consultations, primarily because its group's interests had not been taken into account and also because of the feeling of being marginalized. The 
Member highlighted the fact that the chairpersonship of some committees almost followed a 
default setting of being exclusive to some few select regions and that this trend brought into disrepute the principle of geographical rotation. Thereafter the Member went on to stress the 
need for review in order to avoid outcomes th at resulted from arbitrary and discretionary 
determinations. At that meeting the Chairman noted that, during the process of consultations, a number of delegations had pointed out to him that the process was imperfect and that factors [such] as rotation and regional and group representation could be 
usefully reviewed. He further stated that it was always open to the Membership, and to the 
initiative of interested Members, to find th e most appropriate ways to further refine the 
process. 
 
Despite the clear track record of discontent ex pressed over the years by various Members of 
this Organization with the appointment proce ss, nothing has been done to address this 
important systemic concern. 
 
Therefore, Oman has taken the initiative as a responsible and active Member of this Organization to draw Members' attention once again to a demonstrably flawed process. Our 
aim was less about the TBT Chairmanship and more about restarting the conversation on 
improving the guidelines for the benefit of the membership as a whole and the functioning of this Organization. 
 
We are encouraged to note that the erstwhile Chairman of this Council indicated that Members generally agreed that the guidelines lacked clarity, that he was of the view that 
more clarity will be useful for the implementa tion of the guidelines and, importantly, we 
thank him for his recommendation to have the guidelines reviewed at the General Council before the next cycle of appointments. This is a positive step in the right direction and we look forward to this matter being introduced by you, Mr Chairman, at tomorrow's General 
Council meeting with the aim of addressing th e concerns expressed by this delegation and 
others before it. 
 
Finally, I would like to express our utmost thanks to the delegations of Qatar and the United 
Arab Emirates for their unwavering support and to Morocco on behalf of the African Group for their support and positive contribution during consultations. I would also like to express 
our sincere thanks to Members who took the initiative to inform their position by reaching 
out to us to get a more accurate understanding of the issues at hand. Lastly, but not at all least, I would like to thank the Chairman of the General Council, Ambassador Neple of Norway, for being in close contact with us. 
 G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  To conclude, I would like to end with a quote from a song by the Rolling Stones, which has 
of late been the band of choice at the WTO: 'You can't always get what you want, but if you try, sometimes, well, you just might find you get what you need'." 
 
3.14.  The representative of Sri Lanka, coordinator of the Asian Group of Developing Members, 
thanked all members of the Group for their interest and cooperation on this issue. He was 
confident of the quality of the nominees fr om his Group and congratulated all incoming 
Chairpersons. 
3.15.  With regard to concerns over the applic ation of the Guidelines on the Appointment of 
Officers to the CTG bodies, and specifically with regard to the principle of rotation, he considered it appropriate for Members to discuss the Guidelines with a view to reaching a consensus-based 
understanding with regard to their application. As an alternative proposal, and to facilitate the 
process, he suggested that recognized groups in the WTO could be free to make their own principles in selecting their nominees to serve as Chairs of CTG bodies. 
3.16.  The delegate of Ecuador thanked the form er Chair for his report and recommendations. He 
also thanked Oman for raising an issue of systemic interest, and recalled that Ecuador itself had 
voiced its concern many years before with regard to a similar situation, as reflected in the minutes 
of the CTG meeting of 23 March 2010. He conclu ded by emphasizing the great importance of 
having a clear and transparent selection process as provided for in the Guidelines. 
3.17.  The delegate of the European Union thanke d both the current and the former CTG Chairs for 
their tireless efforts to arrive at a consensus on the slate of names of nominees to chair this year's 
subsidiary bodies of the CTG. The exercise was part icularly difficult this year and required a lot of 
patience from many Members. The European Union appreciated the respective Chair's sensible handling of the process, which was transparent, inclusive, and in full conformity with the 
Guidelines for the appointment of officers to WTO bodies. 
3.18.  This year's process showed the importance of regional groups. They had a critical role to 
play in preparing and facilitating the Chair's consultations through internal discussions on chair 
candidates. However, if these internal discussions remained inconclusive and regional groups 
chose to entrust the Chair with the task of find ing a solution, interested Members should then 
accept the preference expressed by the membersh ip in a due and proper consultation process. 
This did not affect the right of any Member that be lieved that the guidelines required review from 
making proposals to that effect in the relevant WTO body. The consensus principle was a 
cornerstone of this Organization and gave legitimacy to its decisions; however, it also required careful and responsible handling to maintain mutual trust and cooperation between Members. 
3.19.  The European Union hoped that the experience of this year's Chair selection process helped 
Members to draw the right conclusions and to avoid similar situations in the future. If Members believed that a clarification of the Guidelines could be helpful in this endeavour then the European 
Union was ready to engage constructively in those consultations. 
3.20.  The delegate of Morocco, on behalf of the African Group, reques ted that the following 
statement be included in the minutes of this re-convened meeting: 
"The African Group takes note of the results of the consultations. As Members are aware, 
the African Group has participated in this process and, through this statement, it would like 
to express its opinion on the following two points: (1) the proposed list; and (2) the consultation process. 
 
With regard to the proposed list, the African Group is once again deeply unhappy with the results of the consultations that, year after year, display a reduction in the transparency, 
integrity, and credibility, which should normally characterize it. 
 
The African Group is particularly dissatisfied with  the results of the consultations, principally 
because none of its interests were taken into account. Indeed, the proposed slate contains 
four names from Europe, four from Asia, and four from the Americas. The African Group, 
which represents a third of Members, has only been offered one single name amongst the three candidates which put themselves forward, which is a clear, unfair imbalance. This G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  imbalance is even more serious when considering the previous years. Europe, Asia, and the 
Americas took up many more posts than the African Group, which makes up most Members. Between 2011 and 2015, Africa occupied 13 out of 65 posts which were available, so that's 
between two and four posts on average per ye ar, apart from 2013, where Africa had only 
one post. 
 
Africa is the least represented region in terms of Chairs of subsidiary bodies of the various 
councils of the WTO. Over the last eight years, only three African countries have served as 
chairs of the Services Council bodies. Such unf air treatment of a group is completely counter 
to the principles of the WTO, and indeed, the very spirit of this Organization. 
 
The second point concerns the problems underlying the current consultation practices. The 
African Group once again finds this process to be imperfect, and believes it would be useful to examine the rotational principle and the princi ple of representation of the various regional 
groups when there is a lack of consensus and a non-adoption of the list proposed. 
 
During the consultation process of this Council, the African Group demonstrated utmost 
respect for all colleagues who had put themselves forward as candidates to chair the various 
bodies, and respects their motivation and their enthusiasm in working in the service of the 
WTO. Nevertheless, at a time when the nomination of the Chairs was supposed to be the result of a consultation process which was supposed to give rise to a consensus, the results 
of the consultations year after year only reflect a decrease in transparency, integrity, and 
credibility. 
 
These trends discredit the principle of geograph ical rotation that some bodies seem to be 
reserved for only a few regions. This explains the concerns that have already been expressed on numerous occasions by the African Group, especially in the General Council, 
and which unfortunately continue. 
 
The African Group once again would like to draw Members' attention to its concerns, which are the symptoms of something that has to be dealt with seriously if we are to re-establish 
confidence and credibility in the consultation process. 
 
If this imbalance is allowed to continue or is underestimated, it will mean that there are 
serious doubts in the efficacy and efficiency of the election system and would then cause 
systemic problems with the functioning of th e WTO. The African Group would like to note 
that these sentiments are not targeted at any specific individuals, but are rather aimed at 
the system as a whole which has been affected since the past. 
 
Finally, the African Group fully supports the remarks made by Oman about the revision of the guidelines as this goes in the interests of all Members and in the name of the proper 
functioning of this Organization." 
 3.21.  The representative of Chile thanked delega tions who had spoken in support of the work he 
had carried out as former Chair in the context of this process. After having listened to the previous 
speakers, he indicated that it was important not to confuse a lack of clarity in the Guidelines for carrying out the process of appointment of office rs to the subsidiary bodies, with a lack of 
transparency. Indeed, the Chair when fulfilling his functions had to follow those Guidelines, no 
matter how unsatisfactory they might be, taking into account his own view on how to do so. That was what the Chair was meant to do: respect the cu rrent guidelines. He therefore agreed that it 
would be beneficial to the system if the guidelines were reviewed or amended so that they were 
clearer. As in the case of previous Chairs, he also had to carry out the consultation process on the 
basis of the current guidelines, and the final slate of names was the outcome of the consultations he held; in other words, those Guidelines guided the decisions taken. Moreover, in the 
consultations process a combination of factors also emerged and these factors also needed to be 
considered as they resulted from the process itself, as was the case in the current process. 
3.22.  He highlighted the specific situation when a regional group, irrespective of which, could not 
resolve internally the issue of which of its specific candidates to propose for a specified subsidiary 
body, leaving it subsequently up to the Chair to decide. In this case two principles applied and 
were to be respected. Firstly, that trust was being placed in the Chair to take the decision that the 
group had not taken; and secondly, that the decision  of the Chair was to be respected. In his view, G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  these two principles, whether the Guidelines were revised and clarified or not, should be kept and 
respected. 
3.23.  The delegate of Canada thanked Ambassador Casanueva for his tireless efforts and patience 
in what had been a very difficult and time-consuming process, and congratulated those delegates 
who had been elected to chair CTG subsidiary bodies; Canada looked forward to working with 
them closely. 
3.24.  On the issue of the guidelines, Canada, like  the coordinator for the Asian Group, was also of 
the view that it was within each Group's prerogat ive to interpret the guidelines as desired for the 
purposes of their internal deliberations. Canada also agreed with the European Union and with Chile that, if a group could not itself agree on the specific candidate to put forward for a specified Committee, it should in consequence respect the decision of the Chairperson. 
3.25.  Canada was of the view that the dissatisfac tion voiced by some Members with regard to the 
current guidelines should be expressed in the appropriate body, which was not this Council but 
rather the General Council who had the power to review and, if necessary, to revise them. Thus, 
Members seeking review of the guidelines sh ould bring the issue to the General Council. 
3.26.  The delegate of the United States of America thanked the Chairperson for his efforts, 
patience, and guidance in the difficult process of approving the slate of names. He also extended 
his appreciation to the outgoing Chair for all of his efforts throughout the consultation process 
during which he faced important challenges and handled these with transparency and in full accordance with the guidelines established by the General Council. 
3.27.  His delegation had taken note of the st atement made by Ambassador Casanueva, and had 
also listened carefully to the views expressed by certain Members on the Guidelines. It was 
undeniable that the appointment process – both at General Council level and within the CTG – had suffered from some important difficulties this year, and the impulse to review the reasons for 
those difficulties was understandable. His delegation had not been convinced, however, that the 
principal difficulties lay within the established Guidelines or alleged ambiguities therein. For example, it appeared to be the case that the in ternal processes of certain regional groups for 
nominating chair candidates may have suffered fr om certain problems that were not necessarily 
connected to flaws in the Guidelines. Of course, any Members believing that the guidelines required review had the possibility to make proposals to this effect in the relevant WTO body, the General Council. 
3.28.  He thanked those delegates who had been approved to serve as chairs for the upcoming 
year not only for their willingness to take on additional work and responsibilities but also for their patience throughout this recent process. The United States looked forward to working productively 
with each of them in 2016. 
3.29.  The delegate of Qatar associated his delegation with the views reflected in the statement 
delivered by the delegation of Oman, and extended  his appreciation to the former Chair for his 
efforts during the consultations to propose a slate of names to chair the CTG's subsidiary bodies. 
3.30.  He noted that there had lately been a tren d of increased interest by Members to chair these 
committees, placing the appointment procedures of of ficers into question and, in particular, the 
application of the principle of rotation as contained in paragraph 1.1 of the Guidelines, and as 
mentioned also in paragraph 6.1, indicating that rotation was the general rule. In his view, the 
application of this principle should be such as to give an opportunity to different Members to chair a committee and, while the respective level of support  was important, rotation should gain priority, 
while bearing in mind the merits of the candidates. 
3.31.  This year a particular situation emerged in which several issues relating to the application or 
interpretation of the principle of rotation were ca lled into question, such as the notions of country 
rotation, group rotation, and level-of-development rotation. Other Members had also expressed 
the view that the principle of rotation should extend to a consideration of various negotiating interest groups, and to national rotation. G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.32.  Throughout the consultations held both by  the previous Chair, and subsequently by the 
current Chair, and as also reflected in his statement at this meeting, discussions were held that resulted in a need for clarity to be brought to this process. In this regard, he expressed his delegation's appreciation to the Sultanate of Oman for taking an initiative that brought to light 
such pertinent issues. He was also encouraged by a general recognition of the need to bring 
greater clarity to the election process and looked forward to furthering this conversation at the General Council. 
3.33.  The delegate of Australia welcomed the effo rts of the outgoing Chair to bring the process to 
a successful conclusion. It was very important for the effective operation of the CTG and its 
subsidiary bodies that delegations respected the efforts of the Chair to craft a slate of names that, to the greatest extent possible, balanced the competing interests of regions and groupings. 
Australia, while not necessarily agreeing with all the points made in the outgoing Chair's 
statement, did recognize the great efforts he had made to accommodate Members' interests. 
3.34.  Concerning the review of the Guidelines, Australia would support any measures that could 
improve their role in the process. However, Australia noted in particular the comments by the 
Coordinator of the Asian Group on the need for the groups themselves to resolve internal debate according to their own principles and processes. 
3.35.  He emphasized the need for Members to recognize just what the Guidelines were – namely, 
not hard and fast rules, but rather a set of principles to guide the Chair in his work as part of a very difficult process. Members also had to recognize that no outcome would satisfy everyone and that, as such, it was necessary to have confidence in the Chair's efforts to find the best possible 
balance. 
3.36.  The delegate of Colombia thanked Ambassador Casanueva for his efforts during the process 
on the appointment of officers to the CTG's subs idiary bodies and welcomed the way in which the 
process had been carried out, which was an example of inclusiveness and transparency. 
Nevertheless, and without prejudice to that view, Colombia would be prepared to review the Guidelines for this process in the future. 
3.37.  The representative of Singapore recognized , on the basis of the limited discussion at the 
current meeting, just how difficult it must have been for both the previous and the current Chairs, 
not only to conduct the election process but also to draw up a slate of names based on the consultations held. She thanked them both. 
3.38.  From its perspective, Singapore felt that the Chairs had conducted the whole process in a 
way that was in full conformity with the Guidelines and with the implicit flexibilities given to the respective Chairs, on the basis of those Guidelines and consultations, to come up with a slate of 
names. If there were agreement to pursue elaboration of certain aspects of the Guidelines 
specifically to see what could be done to make the process easier for subsequent Chairs, including the current Chair, then her delegation would definitely be happy to do so. 
3.39.  In her view, some wise words had been spoken during the meeting, and while some 
problems might be addressed through trying to ti nker with and improve the existing guidelines, 
there would never be a set of guidelines that would suit 100% of everyone's interests. It was precisely in the context of such situations that  the value and importance of processes in the 
WTO could be appreciated. The process was guided by consensus, the Guidelines were a result of 
consensus discussions, and the Chair had conducted himself in a manner that was consistent with the guidelines given to him. For these reasons Me mbers should, in the interests of the process of 
consensus-building, respect what the Chair had done in full conformity with the Guidelines that 
Members had themselves created. 
3.40.  The delegate of Mexico expressed her gratitude to the Chair and to Ambassador Casanueva 
for their efforts and for having completed this process successfully. Mexico also supported the 
comments made by Singapore. Mexico would also join the consensus if it were deemed appropriate to review the current Guidelines but, again, the Council should be guided by consensus and needed to take into account, besides the issue of rotation, and whether or not the candidate in 
question was my candidate or someone else's, the need to have candidates that enjoyed the 
support of the wider membership. G/C/M/125/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.41.  Mexico again thanked both the outgoing Chair and the current Chair of the Council, because 
the slate that had been submitted was not just presented arbitrarily but on the basis of the consultations carried out, and on the basis theref ore of the support that the membership had given 
to each of the candidates. In light of this, the de legate of Mexico considered the process to have 
been fully in accordance with the current Guidelines. Nevertheless, Mexico remained open to giving 
consideration to the possibility of making any necessary improvements. 
3.42.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. He informed the Council that he would also address the General 
Council at its meeting of Thursday, 12 May 2016, reporting on the concerns raised in connection with this agenda item. The statement by Ambassador Casanueva would be circulated in the JOB document series.
1 
3.43.  It was so agreed. 
3.44.  The meeting was closed. 
__________  
                                               
1 See document JOB/CTG/1.