S/C/53 
16 November 2017  
(17-6256) Page: 1/13 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  SERVICES  
TO THE GENERAL COUNC IL (201 7) 
 
Since its Annual Report of 201 6 to the General Council1, the Council for Trade in Services held five 
formal meetings, respectively on 25 November 2016, 16 -17 March 2017, 17  March  2017 
(dedicated to the review of Article II (MFN) exemptions), 16  June 2017 and 6  October  2017.2 
During the period covered by this report, the Council addressed the following matters.  
1  NOTIFICATIONS MADE T O THE COUNCIL PURSUA NT TO GATS ARTICLES  III:3 , V:7 
AND VII:4  
1.1.  The Council for Trade in Services took note, altogether, of the following notifications:  
(a) Notifications pursuant to Article III:3 of the GATS  
Norway  S/C/N/869  
Dominican Republic  S/C/N/872  
Switzerland  S/C/N/873  
Hong Kong, China  S/C/N/874 -5 
Gabon  S/C/N/87 7-887 
Republic of Korea  S/C/N/8 92-4 
 
(b) Notifications pursuant to Article V:7 of the GATS  
Colombia and the Republic of Korea  S/C/N/868  
Costa Rica and Colombia  S/C/N/8 70 
Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru  S/C/N/871  
Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and the European Union  S/C/N/876  
Republic of Moldova  S/C/N/8 88 
Russian Federation, Armenia, Kazakhstan,  
 the Kyrgyz Republic and Viet Nam  S/C/N/8 89 
China and Hong Kong, China  S/C/N/264/Add.10  
Georgia, Iceland and Norway  S/C/N/8 91 
Chile and Thailand  S/C/N/8 95 
Canada, of the one part, and the European Union  
 and its Member States, of the other  S/C/N/8 96 
 
The agreements notified in these documents were referred to the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements for consideration.  
1.2.  At the meeting held in March 201 7, the Council took note of the updated annual Secretariat 
Note containing a statistical account of the notifications made under relevant GATS provisions.3 
                                                
1 Document S/C/50.  
2 Reports of these meetings are contained in documents S/C/M/12 9 to 13 3, and should be read in 
conjunction with this repor t. 
3 Document JOB(09)/10/Rev. 7. S/C/53 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2  OPERATIONALIZATION O F THE LDC SERVICES W AIVER  
2.1.  The Council discussed the operationalization of the LDC servi ces waiver at all regular 
meetings held during the reporting period.  The LDC Group shared with the Membership its 
assessment of  the waiver preferences notified  by Canada at the meeting held in November  2016, 
and of those notified by Brazil at the March mee ting. The Members concerned provided some 
answers at these meetings and indicated their willingness to follow -up bilaterally on any 
outstanding questions.  
2.2.  At its June meeting , the Council took note of an additional notification of preferences in 
favour  of LDC services and service suppliers,  submitted by Panama.4 After expressing their 
gratitude to Panama for the preferential measures notified, LDCs encouraged other Members in a 
position to do so to notify preferences under the Waiver. LDCs then shared their  appraisal of the 
preferential measures just notified by Panama, as well as of those notified by Thailand. Recalling 
the relevant Nairobi  Ministerial  Decision, LDCs urged notifying Members to undertake specific 
technical assistance and capacity -building me asures to enable LDC service suppliers to utilise the 
preferences granted. They also called on Members to share information on such technical 
assistance measures  with the Council.  
2.3.  At the CTS meeting held in October, the LDC Group presented its assessment o f the 
preferential measures notified by Liechtenstein and Uruguay , respectively, thereby concluding  its 
review of the preferences notified under the Waiver  up to that point.  Panama  reverted to its 
notification, to provide detailed answers to the questions LDCs had posed at the Council meeting in 
June.  
2.4.  After stating that the Waiver preferences were "a success", the LDC Group called on Members 
to help  LDC suppliers avail themselves of th ose preferences. Members were urged to develop  
projects in  LDCs that buil t supply capacity on the ground  and to raise awareness  of the Waiver  
among their respective domestic constituencies.  Recalling paragraph 1.6 of the relevant Nairobi 
Ministerial Decision, LDCs also advocated that Members explore what recommendations the 
Council may make "on steps that could be taken towards enhancing the operationalisation of the 
Waiver".  
2.5.  The Council has received a total of 24 notifications of preferences in favour of LDC services 
and service suppliers, on the part of 51 Members.5 As the Ope rationalization of the LDC Services 
Waiver is a standing item on its agenda, the Council will take it up again in 2018.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
3.1.  At the November  2016 meeting, the Council agreed, in principle, to hold a seminar on the 
services -trade  aspects of e -commerce that had been proposed by a group of Members.6 At the 
meeting, several delegations offered comments and suggestions on the proposed agenda. Many 
called for the event to focus on the development dimension of electronic commerce,  address 
exclusively services issues, serve as an experience - and information -sharing exercise, remaining 
within the m andate of the Work Programme and without any negotiating implications. Some 
delegations asked for  consistency in the way Members approache d all seminars proposed to be 
held under the Council's auspices. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a draft agenda that took 
into account all the concerns and observations made on the co -sponsors' proposal. However, 
Members' agreement was conditioned on the Council also approving the proposal for another 
thematic seminar, on mode  4. 
3.2.  At the March meeting, the Council came to an agreement on the seminar on mode  4. As a 
consequence, it also agreed to the seminar on e -commerce, and tasked the Secretariat with  the 
preparation of a draft agenda  that would reflect all the concerns raised and comments made on 
the co -sponsors' proposal. The draft  Secretariat programme was prepared and circulated to all 
                                                
4 Document S/C/N/890.  
5 Notifications  were submitted by: Canada; Australia; Norway; China; Korea; Hong Kong, China; 
Chinese Taipei; Singapore; New Zealand; Switzerland; Japan; Mexico; Turkey; the United States; India; Chile;  
Iceland; Brazil; the European Union; Liechtenstein; South Africa; Uruguay; Thailand and Panama.  
6 Document RD/SERV/133/Rev.2.  S/C/53 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Members for approval.7 By the prescribed deadline, the Secretar iat received suggested changes 
from some delegations. Given the nature of the suggestions, it was decided that Members would 
revert to the Council for further discussion of the draft programme. At the June meeting, however, 
Members agreed that, in the inte rest of time, consideration of the draft Secretariat programme 
would be taken up in informal consultations. The informal Council meeting held on 20 July 
revealed that there was no convergence of views among Members  to proceed  at that point . Given 
the focus  on preparations for MC11, it was considered that the organization of the thematic 
seminar on e -commerce  would be best taken up again in 2018 .  
3.3.  At the March meeting, the delegation of China presented a communication, co -sponsored 
with Pakistan, on the e -commerce Work Programme.8 All Members welcomed the communication, 
with many calling for the tabling of more submissions on e -commerce. Several  delegations sought 
various clarifications on the communication. Numerous Members favoured the paper's suggestion 
to enhance transparency and exchange information on measures concerning, inter alia, digital 
certificates and electronic signature and authentication. A few Members also called for the 
moratorium on custom duties on electronic transmissions to be made perman ent. As for the 
paper's suggestion that Members discuss e -commerce issues in an informal joint meeting of the 
General Council and its relevant subsidiary bodies, most delegations indicated that they were 
flexible, but a few called for discussions to take p lace in the subsidiary bodies first and be referred 
to the General Council only when sufficiently mature.  
3.4.  At the meetings held in March and June, Members reverted to the communication from China 
and Pakistan and also considered a number of other communicat ions on e -commerce on the 
Council's agenda. Specifically, delegations addressed communications from Argentina, Brazil and 
Paraguay9, the European Union and co -sponsors10, Singapore and co -sponsors11 and ASEAN 
Members12. The communications generated a very hig h level of engagement among Members, with 
more than 30 delegations intervening at each meeting. Members' comments were mainly of a 
general nature. Many delegations emphasized the transformative role of e -commerce, its positive 
impact on growth and developm ent, and its potential to reduce transaction costs especially for 
MSMEs.  
3.5.  A number of Members shared information about their own domestic regulatory frameworks 
relating to e -commerce, as well as their experience with negotiating e -commerce provisions in 
regional trade agreements. All delegations welcomed the exchange of information on national 
experiences with regard to e -commerce, with many underscoring the particular relevance of 
hearing about the experiences of developing countries.   
3.6.  Numerous Members sig nalled their readiness to work towards an outcome for MC11. Various 
said that many of the submissions tabled offered useful information and a structured approach 
that could facilitate discussions. Recognising that Members' views on a Ministerial outcome on  e-
commerce differed, some delegations argued for a gradual approach that would initially focus on 
less controversial issues. In particular, several delegations called for attention to be given to areas 
that would enhance consumer and business confidence w ith electronic transactions and, as such, 
facilitate e -commerce. The elements that were mentioned most frequently by these delegations, as 
possible areas where progress could be achieved, include electronic signatures and authentication, 
e-payments, transp arency, and extending the duration of the moratorium on electronic 
transmissions. A handful of delegations also mentioned that e -commerce would be further 
enhanced by pursuing market access liberalization in services, particularly with respect to mode  1, 
alongside a facilitation agenda.  
3.7.  Several Members, however, argued against any rule -making on e -commerce under the Work 
Programme or as part of any Ministerial outcome. These delegations stated that some of the 
communications tabled went beyond the purely ex ploratory mandate of the Work Programme, 
particularly with the mention of market access issues. They also opined that a number of the 
issues raised in submissions were being addressed in other competent multilateral organisations, 
                                                
7 Document JOB/SERV/256.  
8 Document JOB/SERV/243/Rev.1.  
9 Document JOB/SERV/247.  
10 Document JOB/SERV/248/Rev.2.  
11 Document JOB/SE RV/249.  
12 Document JOB/SERV/260.   S/C/53 
 
- 4 - 
 
  which were the appropriat e fora, and did not belong in the WTO. They called on the proponents to 
redraft their submissions, to make them more development -focused, specific to the body 
concerned and consistent with the scope of the Work Programme.   
3.8.  These delegations also underscor ed the need for the Work Programme to put the needs of 
developing countries and LDCs at the centre of the debate and to address, as a matter of priority, 
the development, industrialisation and employment implications of e -commerce. Amongst the 
specific iss ues mentioned were the digital divide, access to infrastructure, connectivity, technology 
transfer, workforce skills, regulatory capacity and, more generally, the challenges faced by 
developing countries in becoming "e -commerce ready". The Members in quest ion also referred to a 
number of elements that should be clarified in the Council's discussions, including definitional and 
scope issues, measurement challenges, the distinction between modes 1 and 2 in a digital context, 
the classification of digital prod ucts and the question of "new services".  
3.9.  A couple of delegations called for the Secretariat to update the Background Note it had 
produced in 1998 to assist the Council with its deliberations of the treatment of electronic 
commerce in the GATS legal framewo rk, as per the relevant mandate in the Work Programme. 
One delegation, however, argued that the update was not warranted, given that the GATS legal 
framework had not undergone any changes.  
3.10.   A few delegations referred to the institutional arrangements for th e Work Programme 
deliberations. While some welcomed that submissions had been tabled, and were being discussed, 
in the various subsidiary bodies entrusted with the Work Programme, including the Council, a few 
others called for a more consolidated approach to deliberations, to be held possibly in a joint 
meeting of all the relevant bodies.  
3.11.   The Chairman invited delegations to reflect on how the Council could best structure its 
future discussions and make the most productive use of its time. It was agreed tha t the question 
would be taken up at an informal meeting, which was convened on 20 July. At that meeting, t here 
was a general appreciation of the value of continuing with the exchange of information and 
experiences relating to electronic commerce in the Cou ncil. Also, a number of Members re iterated  
their position that the remit of the Council under the Work Programme did not call for any 
negotiation s. Some delegations suggested that any such negotiations should take place in the 
Special Session of the Counci l for Trade in Services. Regarding the discussion of the submissions 
tabled by Members, several delegations stressed that the work of the Council should focus on the 
services -related aspects contained in the communications while discussions on cross -cuttin g issues 
should take place in the General Council.  
3.12.   At the October meeting, the Council addressed two new communications , submitted by 
Chinese Taipei.13 The papers were generally well received, with many delegations stating that they 
contributed to Members'  deliberations and provided a  novel and  useful analytical framework for 
future discussions  on e-commerce. One delegation sounded a more cautious note, however, saying  
that under the Work Programme Members should only discuss the trade -related aspects of e -
commerce, and not digital trade per se , and should focus on areas of common interest where 
progress could be realistically  achieved. A couple of other delegations underscored the purely 
exploratory, experience -sharing nature of the Work Programme and reite rated the importance of 
placing the needs of developing countries and LDCs at the centre of those deliberations.  
3.13.   Under the Work Programme's exchange of information sub -item, at the March meeting  
China shared with the Council an informative presentation on  the commercial evolution of e -
payment services in its market and the applicable regulatory regime. At the October meeting, 
China reported on the commercial and regulatory evolution of courier services  in its domestic 
market, highlighting the supportive ro le that courier sector had played for the development of e -
commerce, and vice versa.  
3.14.   The Nairobi Ministerial Decision mandates that the Gene ral Council periodically review  
progress with the Work Programme based on the reports that might be submitted by the  WTO 
bodies entrusted with its implementation . Pursuant to that mandate,  in November  2016, and again 
in June 2017, the Council agreed that the Chairman would produce, under his own responsibility, a 
                                                
13 Documents JOB/SERV/264 and 265.  S/C/53 
 
- 5 - 
 
  factual report of the essence of the discussions the Coun cil had had under that agenda item up to 
the respective points in time.14  
4  CERTAIN WTO -INCONSIST ENT MEASURES APPLIED  BY UKRAINE  
4.1.  At its November  2016, March , June and October 2017 meetings, the Council addressed 
certain measures related to the reform of the Unified Gas Transportation System of Ukraine, at the 
request of the Russian Federation. The Council took note of the statements made , respectively,  by 
the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Armenia and Cuba at the November 2016 meeting;  and by  the 
Russian Federa tion and Ukraine at the March, June and October meetings.  
5  MODE 4 - ASSESSMENT OF BARRIE RS TO ENTRY  
5.1.  At its November 2016 meeting, Members addressed a communication by India15 proposing 
that the Council organize a thematic seminar on mode 4. While most deleg ations could support the 
proposal, subject to clarifications and am endments to the suggested agenda, no consensus could 
be found  at that meeting. Consultations were organised to try to find a way forward, and following 
deliberations amongst delegations, In dia circulated a revised proposal for the seminar,16 which was 
discussed in March. At that meeting, the Council decided to move forward with the organization of 
the seminar and tasked the Secretariat with the preparation of a draft programme for the event 
that would take into account all the concerns and observations made on India's proposal.  
5.2.  The draft Secretariat programme was prepared and circulated to all Members for approval.17 
By the prescribed deadline, the Secretariat received suggested changes from so me delegations. 
Given the nature of the suggestions, it was decided that Members would revert to the Council for 
further discussion of the draft programme. At the June meeting, however, Members agreed that, in 
the interest of time, consideration of the dra ft Secretariat programme would be taken up in 
informal consultations. The informal Council meeting held on 20 July revealed that there was no 
convergence of views among Members  to proceed  at that point . Given the focus on preparations 
for MC11, it was cons idered that the organization of the thematic seminar on mode 4  would be 
best taken up again in 2018 . 
5.3.  In October, India reiterated its interest in the Council organising the seminar on mode 4 after 
MC11, underlined that the event would be held in an experie nce-sharing mode and stated its 
readiness to engage with  any interested Members on the programme for the seminar.  
6  TRADE FACILITATION A GREEMENT FOR SERVICE S 
6.1.  At the March meeting, India presented to the Council a proposal for a Trade Facilitation 
Agreement for Services (TFS), which had previously been introduced also in the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulation.18 Members engaged in an extensive discussion of the proposal. In addition to 
making a number of general comments, delegations posed several detailed q uestions, shared 
specific observations and sought numerous clarifications. Reactions to the proposal were mixed, 
with some delegations registering their interest in certain of the elements proposed, and many 
raising concerns, of both a general and specific  nature. At the end of the discussion, India offered 
some responses to the questions and observations raised by Members.  
6.2.  At the June meeting, the Dominican Republic circulated a communication with further 
questions on India's proposal19, while other delegat ions also shared fresh or follow -up comments 
and questions. India indicated that it would submit a revised  draft for the proposed TFS, which it 
hoped would address the comments it had received.   
                                                
14 The report s are contained in document S/C/51 and 52 . 
15 Document RD/SERV/135.  
16 Document RD/SERV/135 /Rev.1  
17 Document JOB/SERV/ 255. 
18 Document S/C/W/372.  
19 Document JOB/SERV/263.  S/C/53 
 
- 6 - 
 
  7  FOURTH REVIEW OF MFN  EXEMPTIONS  
7.1.  The Council held a meeting d edicated to the fourth  review of Article II (MFN) exemptions on 
17 March, at which it examined, as per the mandate in paragraph 3 of the relevant GATS Annex, 
all exemptions granted for a period of more than 5 years. Thereafter, the Council pursued its 
review discussions under an item on the agenda of the June meeting.   
7.2.  For the purpose of the review, the Secretariat circulated three background documents: two 
updated compilations of MFN exemptions, one organised by sector (JOB/SERV/29/Rev.1), and one 
organis ed by Member (JOB/SERV/30/Rev.1), and a document providing updated statistical 
information on the number of MFN exemptions listed (JOB/SERV/31/Rev.1).  
7.3.  Two sets of  questions  were submitted  in writing in advance of the  dedicated  meeting : one set 
by Hong Kong , China; Japan; the Republic of Korea; and the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu20; and another by Australia21. In addition, the Council received 
a communication from Costa Rica22 presenting its written answers to the questions re ceived.  
7.4.  Pursuant to the mandate in paragraph 4(b) of the relevant GATS Annex that the Council 
determine "the date of any further review", at its June meeting the Council agreed to close the 
fourth  review of MFN exemptions and to reconvene to decide on the date of  the next review at its 
first meeting of 2022 .   
8  CYBERSECURITY MEASUR ES OF CHINA AND VIET  NAM  
8.1.  At the request of Japan and the United States, at its October meeting the Council addressed 
the cybersecurity measures recently adopted and under developme nt by China and those that Viet 
Nam was developing. The United States also submitted a communication under that agenda 
item.23 The two requesting delegations shared their concerns with the measures at issue, many of 
which were echoed by European Union, New Zealand, Australia and Chinese Taipei . India and 
Brazil also intervened under that agenda item. Both China and Viet Nam took the floor to provide a 
number of clarifications , while also underscoring their respective g overnments'  right to regulate in 
pursuit  of relevant public policy objectives.  
9  FUTURE WORK OF THE C OUNCIL  
9.1.  In June, the CTS Chairman announced that he intended to organize informal consultations to 
consider  how Members could respond to Ministers' pronouncement in paragraph 11 of the Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration.24 Accordingly, a t the informal meeting  held on 20 July , the Chairman 
shared  some of his ideas on possible elements for future work of the C ouncil , while calling on 
Members to put forward all suggestions they might have  in that regard. H is introductory remarks 
were later circulated in writing , to facilitate Members' consideration and in view of a further 
exchange of views .25 At the October meeting, the Council took up the issue but decided, due to 
lack of interest on Members' part, that it would revert to the item only if Members so requested.  
10  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES  STATISTICS  
10.1.   At the October meeting of the Council, the Secretariat made a presentation on recent 
developments in trade in services statistics, which focused on data production and dissemination, 
specific projects, new areas of work and technical assistance activities.  
                                                
20 Document S/C/W/370/Rev.1.  
21 Document S/C/W/371.  
22 Document S/C/W/373.  
23 Document S/C/W/374.  
24 Paragraph 11 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration contain s a reaffirmation of "the importance of work 
in regular bodies in furthering the objectives of the WTO Agre ements and in facilitating meaningful exchange of 
information and sharing of experiences regarding the effective implementation and operation of their 
provisions"  
25 Document JOB/SERV/266 . S/C/53 
 
- 7 - 
 
  11  WORK OF THE SUBSIDIA RY BODIES  
11.1.   The activities of the subsidiary bodies in 201 7 are reflected in their respective reports, which 
are annexed to this report, as follows:  
 Annex I Report of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services (S/FIN/ 32) 
 Annex II  Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments (S/CSC/23 ) 
 Annex III  Report of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/ 20) 
 Annex IV  Report of the Working Party on GATS Rules (S/W PGR/28 ). 
 
 
_______________  
 
 
 S/C/53 
 
- 8 - 
 
  ANNEX I  
  
S/FIN/3 2 
 
16 November 2017  
(17-0000) Page: 1/2 
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COMMITTEE ON TRADE I N FINANCIAL SERVICES  
TO THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN SERVICES (20 17) 
 
Since its prev ious Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Services1, the Committee on Trade in 
Financial Services held three formal meetings , on 24 November 2016, 15 March 2017, 
and 13 June 2017, as well as an informal meeting on 2 October 2017.2  
 
1  REGULATORY ISSUES IN FINANCIAL SERVICE S 
1.1.  In the context of the Committee's review of global financial regulatory reform and the 
implications for trade in financial services, representatives of the Committee on Payments and 
Market Infrastructures (CPMI) , the Financial Stabili ty Board (FSB) and the International 
Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS) made presentations on recent developments in their 
respective areas of competence. The presentations were followed by discussions with Members.  
2  TRADE IN FINANCIAL S ERVICES AN D DEVELOPMENT  
2.1.  The Committee focused on the issue of financial inclusion, on the basis of a Background Note 
by the Secretariat entitled "Barriers to Financial Inclusion and Trade in Services" 
(S/FIN/W/88/Add.1). The Note provides an overview of barriers to financial inclusion (e.g. supply -
side and demand -side constraints, inadequate regulatory frameworks, institutional weaknesses 
and deficient financial infrastructure); shows, through various original case studies, how trade in 
services may help overcome tho se obstacles; and discusses the potential role of trade policy in 
services. As part of this discussion, China and Chinese Taipei provided information on their 
respective financial inclusion initiatives and policies.  
2.2.  The representative of China proposed  that Members focused discussions , and exchanged 
information,  on payment services directly supporting cross -border trade in goods. In that 
connection, China provided an overview of recent domestic market trends and regulatory 
developments in the electronic pa yment services sector. Members are still considering China's 
proposal.  
2.3.  The representative of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of t he Friends of E -commerce for 
Development  or FED  (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, 
Sri Lanka and Uruguay) , briefed the Committee on the S eminar on Digital Payments and Financial 
Inclusion, which was open to all Members  and held in the WTO premises on 13 March  2017. 
Together with China, the FED group stressed that the main take -away from the s eminar was the 
positive linkage between e lectronic payments, financial inclusion, and trade.  
                                                
1 S/FIN/ 31, dated 24 November 2016 . 
2 The reports of the formal meet ings are contained in documents S/FIN/M/ 90 to 92 , and should be read 
in conjunction with this report.  S/C/53 
 
- 9 - 
 
  3  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FINANCIAL SERVICE S TRADE  
3.1.  The representative of Jamaica, on behalf of the Members of the Caribbean Community 
(CARICOM), submitted a draft pro posal for a seminar on de -risking and correspondent banking 
(JOB/SERV/244). Consultations on this proposal, between the proponents and a number of 
delegations as well as within the CARICOM group, are still on -going.  
_______________  S/C/53 
 
- 10 - 
 
  ANNEX II  
  
S/CSC/ 23 
 
16 November 2017  
(17-0000) Page: 1/1 
  
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COMMITTEE ON SPECIFI C COMMITMENTS  
TO THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN SERVICES (20 17) 
 
Since its Annual Report of 2016 to the Council for Trade in Services1, the Committee on Specific 
Commitment s (CSC) held only one formal meeting on 15 March 2017 .2 At this meeting, t he 
Committee addressed two standing items: classification issues and  scheduling issues.  
1  CLASSIFICATION ISSUE S  
1.1 At the meeting of 15 March 2017, the delegation of China raised tw o issues under this item. 
First, taking issue with the view that the discussion on "new services" had been exhausted, China 
requested in -depth examination  on related issues in the Committee. China noted the complexity of 
the issue of "new services" and its  direct relevance to the implementation of specific commitments 
by Members.  Second, China drew Members' attention to the distinction between the two terms: "e -
commerce" and "digital trade". According to China, the interchangeable use of those two terms 
might cause misunderstanding and confusion in the future work on e -commerce  in the WTO. In the 
follow -up discussions, Members expressed divergent views on whether or not to continue the 
discussion on "new services", and on the need to draw distinction between  "e-commerce" and 
"digital trade" .  
2  SCHEDULING ISSUES  
2.1.  At the meeting of 15 March 2017, the delegation of Turkey noted that the problems its 
proposal3 seeking to address in the Committee, i.e. lack of clarity, transparency and predictability 
in scheduled ec onomic needs tests (ENTs), had been adequately covered in Article 5 of the Trade 
Facilitation in Services Agreement (TFS) proposed by India4. Turkey suggested that future work on 
ENTs focus on the acceptability and formulation of Article 5 of the proposed TFS. Turkey's 
suggestion was supported by India and Brazil.  
_______________  
                                                
1 S/CSC/22, dated 23 November 2016.  
2 The report of this meeting is contained in documents S/CSC/M/78 and should be read in conjunction 
with this report.  
3 JOB/SERV/224, dated 29 February 2016  
4 S/C/W/372, TN/S/W/63, S/WPDR/W/58, dated 23 February 2017.  S/C/53 
 
- 11 - 
 
   
 
ANNEX III  
  
S/WPDR/20  
 
16 November 2017  
(17-0000) Page: 1/2 
   
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  WORKING PARTY ON DOM ESTIC REGULATION  
TO THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN SERVICES (20 17) 
 
Since its Annual Report of 201 6 to the Council for Trade in Services1, the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held four formal meetings, respectively on 25 November 2016; 
14 March 2017; 15,  16, 22 June and 5 July 2017; and 2 -4 October 20172, and tw o informal 
meetings, on 27 February and 9 May 2017.3 During the period covered by this report, the Working 
Party continued with its work on the development of regulatory disciplines pursuant to GATS 
Article VI:4.  
DEVELOPMENT OF REGUL ATORY DISCIPLINES UN DER GATS ARTICLE VI:4  
1.1 During the formal meeting of 25 November 2016, the Working Party addressed two 
communications4 by Members: one communication by a group of Members provided a revised text 
proposal on "Administration of Measures"5; the other communic ation, by India, contained "Possible 
Elements of a Trade Facilitation in Services Agreement" .6 Under Other Business, the delegation of 
Australia proposed to invite the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to the next 
meeting of the Working Party to update Members on its recent work on services standards , and to 
hold a Member -driven exchange of information and experience on services standards.7  
1.2 During  the formal meeting on 14 March 2017 , the Working Party addressed three  new 
communicatio ns by groups of co -sponsors: one on  "Transparency "8; and two others  on 
                                                
1 S/WPDR/1 9, dated 25 November  2016. 
2 The reports of the formal meetings are contained in documents S/WPDR/M/ 69 - 72 and should be read 
in conjunction with  this report.   
3 At the informal meeting on 9 May 2017, the delegation from Hong Kong, China, in document 
JOB/SERV/259, circulated its statement  relating to document JOB/SERV/252 /Rev.2 . 
4 In order to inform delegations about the latest version of c ommunica tions that were subsequently 
revised to add co -sponsors, these communications are referred to by their latest revision.  
5 JOB/SERV/239 /Rev. 2, dated 14 June 2017; Communication from Australia, Chile, Colombia, the 
European Union, Japan,  Kazakhstan,  Mexico,  Norway, Peru, Republic of Korea, and the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu – Domestic Regulation – Administration of Measures.  
6 S/WPDR/W/5 7, dated 14 November  2016; Communication from India - Possible Elements of a Trade 
Facilitation in Services Agreement . 
7 RD/SERV/136, dated 24 November 2016; Communication from Australia – Domestic Regulation – 
Technical Standards.  
8 JOB/SERV/251/Rev.2, dated 14 June 2017; Communication from Australia; Colombia; the European 
Union; Hong Kon g, China; Japan; Kazakhstan; Republic of Korea; Mexico; New Zealand and the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  - Domestic Regulation – Transparency . S/C/53 
 
- 12 - 
 
  "Development of Measures"9,10. India circulated a communication concerning a "Trade Facilitation 
Agreement for Services "11, as well as a presentation on this communication.12 
1.3 During th e formal meeting of the Working Party on 15, 16, 22 June and 5 July 2017, 
Members addressed new communication s by groups of co -sponsors on "Technical Standards"13, 
"Development of Measures, Gender Equality"14, and by Australia on "Development (Least 
Develope d Countries)" .15 The delegation of the Dominican Republic submitted a communication 
containing questions on India's proposal for a Trade Facilitation Agreement for Services.16 
1.4 At the formal meeting of 2 -4 October 2017, the Working Party  addressed a commu nication 
on "Disciplines on Domestic Regulation"17, which brings together earlier negotiating proposals by 
proponents for domestic regulation disciplines in one document, as well as a communication  by 
India containing  comments and text proposals to the abov e-mentioned text .18 The delegation of 
India also circulated its opening remarks made at the meeting.19 The African Group submitted a 
communication containing "Questions on Domestic Regulation".20 
_______________  
 
 
 
 
                                                
9 JOB/SERV/250/Rev.1 , dated 14 June 2017 ; Communication from Australia, Canada,  Colombia, the 
European Union, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Norway and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu - Domestic Regulation - Development of Measures . 
10 JOB/SERV/252/Rev.2 , dated 13 March 2017 ; Communication from Chile; Hong Kong, China; New 
Zealand and Switzerland - Domestic Regulation - Development of Measures . 
11 S/WPDR/W/58 , dated 23 February 2017;  Communication from India - Trade Facilitation Agreement 
for Services.  
12 RD/SERV/137, dated 16 March 2017; Presentati on from India – Working Party on Domestic 
Regulation  – 14 March 2017.  
13 JOB/SERV/257/Rev.2 , dated 14 June 2017; Communication from  Australia , Chile; Colombia; Hong 
Kong, China; Japan; Republic of Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway and  the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  – Technical Standards.  
14 JOB/SERV/258/Rev.5, dated 27 September 2017; Communication from Albania, Argentina, Canada, 
Chile, Colombia,  the European Union,  Iceland , Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova, Montene gro, Norway, 
Pakistan, Panama and Uruguay  – Development of Measures, Gender Equality.  
15 JOB/SERV/261, dated 2 June 2017; Communication from Australia – Development (Least Developed 
Countries).  
16 JOB/SERV/263, dated 9 June 2017; Communication from the Domi nican Republic – Questions 
regarding the Communication from India – Trade Facilitation Agreement for Services (S/C/W/372, TN/S/W/63, 
S/WPDR/W/58).  
17 JOB/SERV/268/Rev.3, dated 20 October 2017; Communication from Argentina; Australia; Canada; 
Chile; Colombia ; Costa Rica; the European Union; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; the 
Republic of Korea; Liechtenstein; Mexico; the Republic of Moldova; New Zealand; Norway; Peru; Switzerland; 
and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kin men and Matsu; Turkey  and Uruguay – Disciplines 
on Domestic Regulation.  
18 RD/SERV/145, dated 29 September 2017; Communication from India – India's comments on 
communication JOB/SERV/268  – Disciplines on Domestic Regulation.  
19 RD/SERV/146, dated 3 October 2 017; Communication from India - India's Opening Remarks on 
Communication JOB/SERV/268/Rev.1 – Disciplines on Domestic Regulation.  
20 JOB/SERV/269, dated 27 September 2017; Submission by the African Group - Questions on Domestic 
Regulation.  S/C/53 
 
- 13 - 
 
  ANNEX IV  
  
S/WPGR/28  
 
16 November 20 17 
(17-0000) Page: 1/1 
   
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  WORKING PARTY ON GAT S RULES  
TO THE COU NCIL FOR TRADE IN SE RVICES (2017 ) 
Since its 2016 annual report to the Council for Trade in Services issued in November 20161, the 
Working Party on GATS Rules  (WPGR) has  held no meeting, neither formal nor informal.  
Consequently, during the current reporting period, no further discussions have taken place under 
its auspices regarding t he three negotiating mandates the Working Party is entrusted with – 
namely emergency sa feguard measures ( GATS Article X), government procurement (Article XI II) 
and subsidies (Article XV).  
__________  
 
 
                                                
1 Annual Report o f the Working Party on GATS Rules to the Council for Trade in Services (2016), 
contained in document S/WPGR/27 dated 23 November 2016.