RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/65  
 
28 January 2016  
(16-0639)  Page: 1/8  
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 OCTOBER 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 15 October 2015, chaired 
by Mr. Eog-Weon Lee from the Republic of Korea. The agenda for the meeting was contained in 
document WTO/AIR/WPDR/3 dated 5 October 2015. An annotated agenda for the meeting was circulated in JOB/SERV/217 dated 6 October 2015.  
 
1  ITEM A – ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
SERVICES (S/WPDR/W/54) 
1.1.  Pursuant to the annual reporting requirements  to the Council for Trade in Services (CTS), the 
Chairman invited Members to adopt the draft annua l report contained in document S/WPDR/W/54. 
1.2.  The Working Party adopted the annual report2. 
2  ITEM B - DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY  DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE VI:4 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled the discussion at the pr evious meeting of the Working Party in June on 
elements of domestic regulation that might be 'doable' and 'realistic' in the context of the 
development of a post-Bali work program. The inability of Members to agree to such a work 
program had resulted in a changed environment, in which Members now reflected on a possible 
outcome at MC10 in Nairobi. He recalled the re cent exchanges in the CTS Special Session, from 
which the Chair had concluded that many delegations wanted a services outcome in Nairobi. At the CTS Special Session meeting on 9 October, several delegations had suggested that transparency in 
domestic regulation could constitute the specific scope of a services element for Nairobi. While 
some delegations had suggested that paragraphs 13-15 of the Chairman's text on Domestic Regulation might be a good starting point, others had raised questions as to the meaning of 
transparency in domestic regulation, and its relationship with the Article VI:4 mandate. It was 
stressed that a concrete proposal was needed to help clarify the scope of possible work. Many delegations expressed the view that it was import ant that any Nairobi outcome on transparency in 
domestic regulation was consistent with the objectives of GATS Articles IV and XIX, and result in a 
development dividend. Some said that an outcome needed to benefit developing countries, and not place additional burden on them, or reduce their policy space. Finally, most Members who 
spoke had stated that any outcome on transparency could not be considered as a completion of 
the Article VI:4 mandate. Most delegations had signalled flexibility as to whether the Special 
Session or the WPDR should take the issue forwar d, but some had stated that decisions on the 
scope of a services outcome needed to be taken by the Special Session, which also needed to be in 
the picture to assess the overall balance in light of  other elements of the Ministerial Declaration. 
The Chairman further recalled that in light of the limited time available, the Chairman of the 
special Session had encouraged Members to continue the discussion in the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulation. 
2.2.  With that in mind, he had suggested that the discussion should focus on key issues that had 
not been addressed in a recent meeting of CTS Special Session. Those possible issues would 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 The Annual Report of the Working Party on Domestic  Regulation to the Council for Trade in Services 
(2015) was issued as document S/WPDR/15, dated 15 October 2015. S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 2 - 
 
  be: (1) what should be the components of elements of a transparency in domestic regulation 
outcome; and (2) how should development considerations be reflected?; in other words, which specific development elements and components would appropriately reflect the development dimension? 
2.3.  The representative of the Republic of Korea emphasized that her delegation was in favour of 
starting text-based negotiations on transparency as  soon as possible. In response to the questions 
posed by the Chair, her delegation considered th e three transparency elements contained in the 
draft domestic regulation texts to be a good st arting point for discussion, i.e. publication of 
measures, responses to enquiries by service suppl iers, and publication of draft measures, with a 
view to providing service suppliers reasonable opportunities to comment. Her delegation was flexible with regard to any other elements delegations may wish to consider. Korea was open to 
any constructive suggestions concerning development aspects.  
2.4.  The representative of the European Union stated  that in light of the limited time available, it 
was essential to advance issues in parallel. Work on transparency should commence on the basis 
of the clear perimeter of paragraphs 13-15 of the 2009 draft Chairman's text. The draft text 
contained therein was only a starting point and not the finishing line, and might evolve in the course of the discussions. 
2.5.  The representative of Turkey recalled that her delegation had strongly advocated for a 
domestic regulation component to be part of the post-Bali work program, stressing that solid rules 
on requirements and procedures for licensing and qualification were indispensable to allow service suppliers to benefit from negotiated market access. A lack of information on the relevant 
regulatory regime, excessive requirements, complex procedures and high fees not only limited the 
ability of foreign service suppliers, but of domestic suppliers as well. With built-in flexibilities for developing countries in the text, Turkey was ready to engage actively in the negotiations to 
achieve a meaningful outcome in Nairobi. However, disciplines limited to transparency only, would 
not be sufficient to address these issues. She wondered about the implications of a transparency-only approach for the rest of the domestic regulation disciplines, and questioned 
whether there would be engagement after Nairobi on all other elements. She urged Members to 
start discussions as soon as possible.  
2.6.  The representative of Australia concurre d with previous speakers that discussions on a 
services outcome needed to start as soon as possible, and in parallel with discussions on other 
issues. She highlighted the importance that Australia  placed on services being part of an outcome 
in Nairobi and saw good prospects for a services deliverable on transparency in domestic regulation. While Australia would have liked to go further than transparency, she recognized that 
time was limited and that a Nairobi outcome on transparency in domestic regulation would not 
exhaust the mandate under Article VI:4. She supported text-based discussions building on the work been carried out over many years in the WPDR which had resulted in paragraphs 13-15 of 
the Chairman's text. Her delegation did not see significant differences in substance between the 
2009 and 2011 versions of that text. Possibly, certain elements needed to be added or modified to get an outcome that accommodated all Members’ interests. She expected a need to add preambular elements which clarify the scope of application and specify that conclusion on a 
transparency element would not exhaust Article VI:4.  
2.7.  The representative of the Russian Federati on reaffirmed her delegation's interest in the 
development of disciplines on domestic regulation , and at this point on transparency. While both 
the 2009 and 2011 draft texts on domestic regulation were generally suitable, she suggested that 
the 2009 version be the basis for further negotiations on particular transparency disciplines (in particular paragraphs 13-15). The Russian Federation was prepared to actively participate in 
substantial negotiations on transparency and to consider any other proposals that may be put 
forward in the course of such negotiations. The Russian Federation was also committed to engage constructively in further discussions on domestic regulation after Nairobi. 
2.8.  The representative of Chile concurred with earlier speakers on the need to start work 
immediately, and that a realistic focus of work should lie on transparency issues in domestic 
regulation, based on in particular paragraphs 13-15 of the domestic regulation draft text.  S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.9.  The representative of Switzerland noted that his delegation would ideally have liked a very 
ambitious result on services for the Nairobi Minist erial. However, the limited time left suggested 
that the focus of work should be more limited as well. Switzerland was ready to engage on transparency on the basis of paragraphs 13-15 of the Chairman's draft text. He concurred with 
earlier speakers that other elements of the domestic regulation mandate needed to be taken up 
after Nairobi. 
2.10.  The representative of Canada stated that  paragraphs 13-15 of the Chair’s text addressed 
elements that could be included in a transparen cy outcome. Generally, there was little difference 
between the 2009 and 2011 texts with respect to these articles; however, for paragraph 13, some improvements were made in the 2011 text, which had been agreed ad referendum . Paragraph 14 
was exactly the same in both texts, and paragraph 15 would require some negotiation regardless 
of the starting point. Canada was open to suggestions for preambular language relating to the 
continuing mandate under Article VI:4, as well as to the inclusion of a development and special and differential treatment (S&D) component that  was proportional to the provisions under 
consideration. He noted that one self-balancing element contributing to the development outcome 
might be included in the scope of application: if that scope was tied to specific commitments, then Members with more ambitious commitments woul d automatically bear a heavier burden with 
respect to these obligations.  
2.11.  The representative of New Zealand stressed the importance of a services outcome in 
Nairobi. Transparency in a narrow sense could be a doable outcome for MC10. While such a narrow 
transparency-focused outcome would be woefully inadequate to meet her delegation's ambitions 
on domestic regulation, any work in this regard would have to be without prejudice to the 
Article VI:4 mandate. Either of the WPDR texts seemed to be a natural starting point for these discussions as the entire membership had worked on these elements in the past. Paragraphs 13 
to 15 seemed particularly relevant to a transpar ency discussion. In regard to the question of 
development, flexibilities should be determined on the basis of the substance of the outcome. 
Generally, New Zealand preferred to work on transp arency at this stage in the CTS Special Session 
for reasons of symmetry with discussions in other pillars.  
2.12.  The representative of Colombia stated that her delegation was committed and ready to work 
and obtain a result on transparency in services. This was doable and realistic, and she welcomed 
the idea to start substantive discussions on a "what if " hypothesis on the basis of existing texts, as 
soon as possible.  
2.13.  The representative of Singapore agreed  with previous speakers to start work on 
transparency immediately and on the basis of pa ragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the Chairman's draft 
text. Singapore was open to the suggestion of preambular language to clarify that any outcome on 
transparency would not exhaust the Article VI:4 mandate. His delegation was also ready to discuss any other sensitive area, and welcomed constructive proposals on development priorities.  
2.14.  The representative of Japan was agreeable to start work on the basis of paragraphs 13, 14 
and 15 of the Chairman's draft text and concurre d with Singapore that concrete proposals on the 
development elements were needed.  
2.15.  The representative of Peru was likewise ready to commence work on the basis of 
paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the Chairman's text, without specific preference for either the 2009 
or 2011 text. Peru was also ready to continue work  under the Article VI:4 mandate after Nairobi. 
2.16.  The representative of Costa Rica expresse d the view that an outcome on transparency in 
domestic regulation in Nairobi was within reach and would mark a valuable contribution to the 
multilateral trading system. Time was short, however, and his delegation was flexible on which of the two draft texts should form the basis of work, as both texts were the product of the good work 
of the membership in the past.  
2.17.  The representative of Nigeria stressed the importance of the development component of any 
transparency outcome and suggested an approach similar to the one taken in the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement. It was important that any text respected the right to regulate in order to achieve 
domestic policy objectives. He cautioned against attempts to simply transpose existing language 
into a Nairobi Declaration which had its own inherent logic. S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.18.  The representative of Pakistan agreed that it was necessary to get back to work as soon as 
possible and focus on transparency on the basi s of the Chair text of 2009, in particular 
paragraphs 13, 14 and 15. He was uncertain whether it was possible to advance discussions sufficiently by MC10.  
2.19.  The representative of Chinese Taipei concurred that transparency would be a doable and 
meaningful outcome in Nairobi, and that work co uld be based on paragraphs 13 to 15 of either 
the 2009 or 2011 versions of the Chairman's text. Enhancement of transparency in domestic 
regulation could be of benefit to all Members,  including LDCs and developing countries. She 
welcomed proposals on the development aspect of a transparency outcome. 
2.20.  The representative of China agreed that an outcome on domestic regulation in Nairobi would 
be desirable. Therefore, substantive text-bas ed discussions should be resumed as soon as 
possible. China was flexible on what was doable and realistic and believed that the common efforts 
by Members in the past years should be respected.  The potential outcomes on domestic regulation 
should be based on texts to which Members had contributed before. Paragraphs 13 to 15 of 
the 2009 Chairman's text would be a good starting point for discussion. Special and differential 
treatment for developing countries needed to be considered, and in particular transition periods n e e d e d  t o  b e  i n c l u d e d .  F u r t h e r ,  t h e  m a n d a t e  o f  G A T S  A r t i c l e  V I : 4  s h o u l d  b e  a d h e r e d  t o  i n  
subsequent negotiations after Nairobi.  
2.21.  The representative of Barbados, on behalf of the ACP group found it peculiar that less than 
two months before Members were to attend the Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, the inclusion of 
disciplines on transparency in domestic regulati on in a mini-package was discussed. When some 
notions of this kind had surfaced earlier, it ha d been in the context of a post-Bali work program 
and there had been no consensus to move forward on that idea. There had not been any further consultations that would have helped build awar eness and forge consensus since. The ACP group 
had been unaware of any proposals to include dome stic regulation transparency in a mini-package 
in Nairobi. The ACP group would have appreciated the opportunity to discuss these proposals internally so as to form a clearer position on the actual text and the objectives sought. This was 
specifically the case as the domestic agencies and regulatory regimes of ACP members would have 
to weigh in on the details of such proposals. Further, there were at present no proposals on 
transparency that could garner consensus across ot her areas of WTO. For the ACP group, none of 
the past texts that might be deemed to be transparency-related in the Article VI:4 negotiations 
were settled. The relevant proposals had been considered in a different context, namely the 
entirety of the Article VI:4 negotiations. She su ggested that Members turn their attention to a 
number of ripe areas across the development components of the Doha Development Agenda 
(DDA), which were currently not being entert ained. If anything could be a development 
contribution from the domestic regulation area, it should be that ACP members were not requested to take on any new obligations in Nairobi. In advance of continued negotiations in 2016, 
proponents of a domestic regulation package in Nairobi could agree to the development chapter of 
the 2009 text, updated with the elements found in  the ACP submission contained in JOB/TNC/46. 
This included the notion that special and differential treatment provisions include the principle of self-designation of transition periods and the conc ept that implementation of disciplines would not 
be required unless capacity was acquired. Additionally, future disciplines had to be developing 
country friendly, regardless of the ability to utilise transition periods for implementation. A development component could consist of early agr eement on disciplines in favour of developing 
countries and LDCs, including transparency provisions in qualification requirements and procedures 
so as to minimize hindrances to ACP mode 4 services exports. While transparency might appear simple at first, new domestic regulation disciplines of any kind could limit the regulatory ability of 
national authorities. Many hard fought transparency obligations existed in WTO agreements 
including the new Trade Facilitation Agreement. Disciplines of any kind proffered as commitments, even a best endeavor commencing with a "shall", was a justiciable matter in WTO dispute settlement. Therefore, if there had been an ex pectation that ACP members should take on new 
commitments in Nairobi of this kind, it would have been necessary that texts had been thoroughly 
vetted with all of the domestic agencies and stakeh olders, especially given the capacity constraints 
in our membership.  
2.22.  The representative of Barbados, speaking on behalf of Small, Vulnerable Economies (SVEs) 
agreed with others that there was little time left before MC10. The Ministerial meeting in Nairobi 
had to deliver a meaningful development package for developing countries and in particular SVEs. 
In this regard, development should be consid ered in a broader perspective and a minimum S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 5 - 
 
  package would not be sufficient to fulfill the development focus of the DDA. SVE proponents 
recalled the flexibilities for developing countries and SVEs in GATS Articles XIX:2 and in the various negotiating mandates, as well as due respect for national policy objectives, the level of development and the size of economies of individu al Members. On the matter of transparency in 
domestic regulation, a successful and balanced outcome was necessary in Nairobi. SVEs were still 
unclear what transparency in the context of domestic regulation entailed. For SVEs, a thorough understanding of the implications, the scope and de pth of any disciplines on transparency had to 
be carefully analyzed and understood prior to agreeing to such disciplines. In particular a clear 
understanding had to be in place that any disciplines on transparency, whether developed under a mandate from the Nairobi Ministerial or the regular work of the WPDR should not impinge on SVEs rights to implement, adjust or further regulate their services sectors without penalty or threat. 
Special and differential treatment was a necessary element in any agreement on trade in services, 
including domestic regulation. In this regard, a clear decision on the role and depth of S&D for 
developing countries in the work of the WPDR, in the wider trade in services discussions and in the 
wider WTO negotiating areas might be useful. With regard to the forum for discussion, SVEs 
continued to support the view that all negotiations on disciplines for domestic regulation should be handled in the WPDR. 
2.23.  The representative of Bangladesh, speaking on behalf of the LDC group, expressed the view 
that any consensus on transparency disciplines in a mini-package for Nairobi or any future 
negotiation under GATS Article VI:4 should exempt  LDCs from implementing the disciplines. If a 
few Members chose to bind themselves on transpar ency in Nairobi, the LDC group urged them to 
include special disciplines that facilitated LDC services exports. In particular, he requested that 
Members agree in Nairobi to provide preference s for LDC service suppliers in response to 
sections B and C of the LDC collective request of July 2014.  
2.24.  The representative of the United States stated that there needed to be a discussion as to 
what was doable and feasible so that Members could arrive at a common understanding of what 
might be possible. His delegation would look at what was brought forward in a concrete manner as 
long as it was doable in the short time before the Ministerial meeting. Given the scarcity of time, 
any possible result had to be simple. There were bigger questions as to whether or not there would be a small package at all. Perhaps not everybody was on board with a small package. There needed to be some deeper thinking before Members engaged in detailed discussions about text. 
2.25.  The representative of Hong Kong, China stated that her delegation would of course prefer 
that the Article VI:4 mandate be fully delivered,  but realized that a partial delivery on the 
transparency provisions in the WPDR text would be the only possibility given the shortness of time. 
Paragraphs 13 to 15 of the 2009 or 2011 Chairman's texts could form the basis for such an 
outcome. Either text was familiar to delegations who had worked on the issues for many years. She agreed that S&D needed to be proportional to the obligations that a transparency outcome 
would create. Her delegation had an open mind to any constructive suggestions in that regard. It 
was time to start working on the text. Her delegation sought an outcome applicable to all Members in principle, not a reference paper. 
2.26.  The representative of Ecuador supported the statement by Barbados on behalf of the SVEs. 
He reiterated his delegation's position that development issues needed to be present in any 
discussion leading up to Nairobi, and that these issues had to remain on the agenda after MC10. Ecuador had reservations regarding the draft disciplines because they could compromise policy 
space needed to achieve domestic development goals, by jeopardising the authorities' ability to 
regulate. Any process needed to be driven by proponents, through tabling of clear proposals that could then be debated. Ecuador was looking fo r a balanced outcome where developing country 
needs were taken into account. It was not clear what could be gained by extracting 
paragraphs 13-15 from the current draft text and putting them into a package, the scope of which 
was uncertain. It would be better to understand first what that scope of transparency was, before agreeing to any disciplines. Discussions on this issue should take place in the WPDR rather than 
the CTS Special Session.  
2.27.  The representative of South Africa stated  that there was still no consensus on the small 
package deliverables for Nairobi. She did not comprehend how transparency had even become a 
part of the conversation. Her delegation was unclear as to what a so-called transparency proposal 
would look like. There had never been consensus on discussing the specific elements of transparency, or a textual basis for such a discussion. Her delegation had always seen S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 6 - 
 
  the 2009 text in its entirety as a basis for domestic regulation negotiations. She stated that 
transparency had been added by one Member as a demand for its participation in the negotiations. 
Developing countries had agreed to this addition  so long as a development chapter was included. 
Any discussion of transparency only left no such quid pro quo . She requested that all proposals be 
submitted in writing so that her capital could assess them. South Africa was not in a position to 
bind itself to new transparency provisions, espe cially when the scope of a possible small package 
and the effect of a transparency element on the overall negotiations under the Article VI:4 were 
unclear. Any negotiations on disciplines in domestic regulation should take place in the WPDR.  
2.28.  The representative of the Plurinational Stat e of Bolivia expressed concerns about the lack of 
clarity of the substance of a possible mini-package. Transparency was not an element that many 
developing countries were supporting in this context. He disagreed that there was any text agreed 
ad referendum  on transparency only. Work that had been carried out in the past on Article VI:4 
disciplines had taken place in a specific context, and did not allow extracting of isolated elements 
of the discussion. Technically, there were question s with regard to scope of application, and the 
relationship of a transparency outcome with future negotiations. He also called on proponents to 
come forward with clear suggestions. Any work should integrally include the development component, and provide the right flexibilities for developing countries in terms of transitional 
periods and capacity-building. Disciplines should not affect the ability of Members to regulate 
domestically and to disperse scarce resources in processes that were not absolutely necessary.  
2.29.  The representative of India stated that her delegation was not a demandeur with regard to 
harvesting transparency in services as part of  a small package. The Director-General had noted 
that discussions on elements of a small package ha d to be proponent-driven. India would like to 
understand what the proposal on transparency in services encompassed and obtain a clear 
elaboration from proponents. She requested for a written submission of the proposal before she 
could agree to a "what if" discussion, especially since many delegations had said that they saw 
paragraphs 13 to 15 as a basis, and would bring in additional elements. Members needed to bear in mind that the mandate of the Article VI:4 negotiations encompassed the development of 
necessary disciplines so that measures relating to licensing requirements and procedures, 
qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards did not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services. Transparency as such was not mentioned in Article VI:4. The draft Chairman's text included a section on transparency, which created additional burdensome 
obligations and could at best be considered together with substantive disciplines in areas of 
interest to her delegation. Such areas were, in particular, qualification requirements and procedures and S&D. A stand-alone transparency outcome in domestic regulation was imbalanced. 
She noted that statements in the General Council had stressed that outcomes in Nairobi should be 
development focused. Any proposal on transparen cy should meet the development objective, not 
create additional burdensome requirements for developing countries, and not be overly intrusive in 
domestic policy space. She also agreed with other delegations that there was no clarity on the 
substance of a mini package as yet. She expresse d a preference for any related discussions to take 
place in the WPDR. 
2.30.  The representative of Indonesia noted that  there was no mandate on transparency in the 
DDA. There was also no mandate in Article VI:4 or elsewhere for transparency elements relating to 
domestic regulation. The inclusion of the transparency chapter in the domestic regulation text was meant to balance the chapter of development proposed by many developing countries. There 
should hence be no cherry-picking of transparency in domestic regulation without inclusion of a 
development chapter. The transparency obligations stipulated in the current domestic regulation 
text would add more burden, especially if they were not accompanied by developmental aspects, 
including the possibilities to access technical assistance and capacity-building. Indonesia wished to 
see more development-oriented outcomes. 
2.31.  The representative of Brazil concurred with other speakers that in order not to waste the 
few weeks until Nairobi, the boundaries within which conversations on a mini-package could take 
place would need to be set. For his delegation, the 2009 text was the basis for discussions. That 
text was a common denominator that could be found in all the positions. This did not mean that paragraphs 13 to 15 would be automatically accepted as an outcome. S&D treatment and 
development would need to be taken into account from the start. There was no need to sequence 
the conversation and wait for clarity on the subs tantive content of a transparency element before 
considering S&D and development elements. The WPDR was the right forum for technical S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 7 - 
 
  discussions on domestic regulation and the CTS Special Session should focus on the balance with 
other pillars. 
2.32.  The representative of El Salvador endors ed the statement by the Barbados on behalf of 
Small Vulnerable Economies and on behalf of ACP countries. In the absence of written proposals, 
she held the view that paragraphs 13, 14, 15 of the 2009 text required detailed examination. It 
was important to have a common understanding of the terms included in paragraph 13 of the Chairman's text, as well as on the definitions of licensing requirements and procedures, 
qualification requirements and procedures, and te chnical standards, which presented the scope of 
application of the transparency chapter. Any addi tional obligations included in a Nairobi package 
had to be accompanied with additional provis ions recognizing the right to regulate and 
acknowledging the difficulties of developing countries to implement such disciplines, as well as all 
of the other elements included in the developm ent chapter, such as transitional periods and 
technical assistance. Her delegation would like to see written proposals for submission to its authorities for consideration. Discussions on the disciplines should take the place in the WPDR. 
2.33.  The representative of Argentina stated th at transparency elements of a Nairobi package 
should not add any further administrative burdens for developing countries. Any proposed texts 
should also not undermine the national capacity to regulate. It was important to ensure that a 
result in Nairobi did not preclude obtaining a result on the remainder of domestic regulation post-
Nairobi.  
2.34.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela endorsed the statement made by 
Barbados on behalf of the ACP group, as well as the comments made by Bolivia and India. All 
negotiations on domestic regulations should take place in the WPDR. 
2.35.  The representative of Chile stated that the discussion had left him slightly more optimistic 
than a previous discussion that had recently taken place in the CTS Special Session. There seemed 
to be a visible take-off zone emerging. He was, however, perplexed to hear delegations 
characterizing themselves as non-demandeurs in this area. Such a characterization was fitting in the context of a comprehensive services negoti ation. The current discussion, however, evolved 
around the possibility of a successful outcome in  Nairobi. For MC10 to be successful, a services 
element would need to be included. And such an element needed to be doable and realistic. What seemed to be doable and realistic was transparen cy. Questioning the transparency element of the 
Nairobi package would undermine the inclusion of any services element, and thereby significantly 
lower the chances for overall success.  
2.36.  The representative of the European Union fe lt encouraged by most of the interventions. A 
majority of Members appeared to be ready to start working on a very concrete basis. Many of the 
valid questions raised by delegations needed to be  addressed in the context of further discussions. 
Many delegations had said that there was no clarit y on the package, but he considered this to be 
only too natural at this stage. It was up to Members to bring clarity to the issue by discussing the 
transparency elements in a focused manner. The relevant paragraphs had been on the table for 
ten years and the colleagues in capital were very familiar with them.  
2.37.  The representative of Egypt stated that his delegation, like others, had wished for a full 
delivery of the mandate but at the same time, on the hypothesis that a Nairobi package could 
come together, a transparency outcome based on  paragraphs 13-15 of the 2009 text could be a 
good basis, despite some reservations by his delegation on some of the provisions mentioned in these paragraphs. Starting the discussions would help Members check how to incorporate the 
flexibilities that developing countries were calling for. 
2.38.  The Chairman stated that the discussion had been very useful in that it provided a clearer 
overview of each delegation's position. While some  delegations believed that work should start as 
soon as possible on the basis of paragraphs 13, 14,  15 of the 2009 or 2011 texts, others felt more 
clarity and in particular written proposals needed to be presented first. It was for Members to reflect on how to move forward from here. 
2.39.  The representative of Barbados stated th at from both the ACP and SVE groups' perspective 
there was no consensus on moving forward at the present meeting.  S/WPDR/M/65 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.40.  The representative of the European Union stated that he had understood that many of the 
reservations expressed could be addressed in the context of the substantive discussion, which 
could start immediately.  
2.41.  The representative of Turkey reiterated her delegation's readiness to engage in further work 
on the conditionality that discussions were not only limited to transparency only.  
2.42.  The Chairman concluded that he did not see enough convergence of views that would allow 
continuation of substantive discussion of a transpar ency element on a "what if" basis at this stage. 
He invited each Member to reflect on the way forward and encouraged Members to have more 
conversations with each other, so as to expl ore possible avenues for convergence. He would 
continue to consult with delegations as well as the Chair of the CTS Special Session. He was ready 
to convene any further meeting as appropriate. 
2.43.  He suggested that the Working Party take note of the statements made.  
2.44.  It was so agreed.  
3  ITEM C – FUTURE WORK 3.1.  The Chairman recalled that the item of "Fut ure Work" was a standing item on the agenda of 
the Working Party. Since substantive work under the mandate of the Working Party had been 
dormant since mid-2014, discussions at the last few meetings had essentially focused on "what" 
work the Working Party should do, and "when" it should carry out any such work. Hence, the issue 
of future work had been part and parcel of th e discussion on"Development of Disciplines under 
Article VI:4 "under the previous agenda item, and the discussions had often overlapped 
significantly. The present meeting appeared to be  no different in this regard, since the Working 
Party had just discussed under the previous agenda item, what work might be carried out until 
Nairobi. He opened the floor to delegations for general comments on future work under the 
mandate of the Working Party.  
3.2.  As no delegation took the floor, the Chai rman suggested that the Working Party discuss the 
issue of future work at its next meeting. 
3.3.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM E - OTHER BUSINESS 4.1.  No matters were raised under 'Other Business'.  4.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________