RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/72  
3 November 2017  
(17-6035) Page: 1/50 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 2, 3 AND 4  OCTOBER 2017  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT 
The Working  Party on Domestic  Regulation  (WPDR)  held a meeting  on 2, 3 and 4 October  chaired  
by Ms. Katarzyna  Stecz  from Poland.  The agenda  for the meeting  was contained  in document  
WTO/AIR/WPDR/10  dated  22 September  2017.   
 
The representative  of South  Africa  raised  an item concerning  the report  of the last WPDR  meeting  
(S/WPDR/M/71)  under  Other  Business.  
 
The agenda  was adopted  with the added  item under  Other  Business . 
 
1  ITEM A. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS  ARTICLE VI:4  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that at the end of the last meeting, the co -sponsors of various text 
proposals had indicated that they would seek to consolidate their proposals into one submission. 
That submission had been circulated on 22 September  2017 as document JOB/SERV/268  and a 
revision had been  issued on 2 October 2017,  as JOB/SERV/268/Rev.1,  adding the delegation of 
Turkey to the list of the co -sponsors and removing one footnote to the text.  She noted that two of 
the earlier submitted propos als, on "Gender Equality " and "Development – LDCs" had been 
retained on the Airgram at the request of the respective co -sponsors. The Chairperson informed 
Members that since the Airgram had been issued, two additional submissions had been received. 
The Afr ican Group had submitted a document entitled "Questions on Domestic Regulation ", 
contained in document JOB/SERV/269, and India had submitted a document containing "India's 
comments on Communication JOB/SERV/268 – Disciplines on Domestic Regulation ", circul ated as 
RD/SERV/145.   
1.2.  The Chairperson  opened the floor for a general introduction of the new documents, as well as 
general comments, questions and clarifications.  
1.3.  The representative of the Republic of Moldova  expressed her delegation 's support for 
document JOB/ SERV/268/Rev. 1 on "Disciplines on Domestic Regulation ". The text comprised 
earlier proposals on "Administration of Measures ", "Development of Measures ", "Transparency ", 
"Technical Standards " and "Gender Equality ". The document was focused on ensuring transparency 
of procedures relating to licensing requirements and procedures, qualification requirements and 
procedures and technical  standards, affecting trade in services where specific commitments ha d 
been undertaken. When joining the WTO in 20 01, Moldova had made extensive commitments o n 
services liberalization under the GATS. Being a developing economy in transition, Moldova had 
made commitments on 147 out of 155 services sub -sectors in its GATS schedule. In various 
sectors Moldova had schedul ed commitments without limitations . Services trade in Moldova had 
expanded steadily in the last few years. From 2000 to 2008 services exports had increased 
fivefold. Notwithstanding export  growth, Moldova had mostly been a net importer of services, and 
services represented less than a third of its total exports. The services sector contributed to 
around 60% of Moldova 's GDP. The main reason for Moldova to encourage  trade in services 
domestically was  to improve and modernize its services industry, promote tr ansparency and 
advocate concrete disciplines on domestic regulation. In the past couple of years Moldova had 
focused on the promotion of electronic applications and acceptance of copies, despite having 
various competing priorities and facing resource const raints. Moldova had simplified its tax regime 
by eliminating a requirement to submit social security documents in hard copy and establishing a 
special online system for tax declarations. She encouraged Members to establish a single S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 2 - 
 
  electronic window  or por tal for all licenses as this would increase the efficiency of current 
procedure s of granting licenses, as well as a one stop shop for the management and issuing of 
permissive acts which would improve transparency and reduce the bureaucracy associated with 
obtaining a license.  
1.4.  The representative of Moldova expressed the view that the elimination of barriers to market 
entry for new companies and the stimulation of competition should be a priority for every 
government. The proposed disciplines were meant to co mplement the commitments undertaken 
by WTO Member s. Moldova had recently eliminated approximately 150 permissive acts by 
implementing Law No. 181 of 22 July 2016, amending and supplementing certain legislative acts in 
regulating the licensing of entrepreneurial activity.  Regarding gender equality , she stated that  
Moldova had ensured that measures taken by national authorities did not discriminate against 
individuals on the basis of gender, in general and when adopting or maintaining licensing 
requirements, licensing procedures, qualification requirements or qualification procedures. Moldova 
also supported the proposal on the necessity test by Switzerland in paragraph 6.3 . She noted that 
Members ' efforts should be focused on the adoption of the cons olidated text that proposed 
disciplines on domestic regulation at MC11, or, at least on drafting an appropriate paragraph on 
domestic regulation to be included in the Ministerial Declaration.   
1.5.  The representative of the European Union  introduced the consoli dated text in document 
JOB/SERV/268/Rev. 1. The document represented a consolidation of all proposals submitted by the 
co-sponsors to date. The added -value of the consolidation was in the clarified language on the 
scope of the disciplines, as well is in the  articulation  between the various elements of  the separate 
proposals. The consolidated text would allow Members to have a better conversation on the 
implications of the obligations and disciplines proposed.  The main bo dy of the text, namely 
Articles  1 to 6 .1, had been jointly developed by all co -sponsors.  Paragraphs 6.2 on gender equality 
and 6.3 on the necessity test had a different set of co -sponsors than the rest of the consolidated 
text. Beyond the clerical consolidation, the text also contained some ch anges compared to the 
earlier proposals. These changes represented an attempt to address the questions and concerns 
expressed by Members in previous meetings and had been reflected in underlined text and italics, 
as compared to the language in original pro posals that had been discussed individually. The 
consolidated text still contained some brackets in areas were co -sponsors had not yet reach ed 
agreement  among themselves.  Regarding the structure of the document, Section I of the 
consolidated text covered g eneral provisions and the scope of the disciplines, as well as the 
reaffirmation of the right to regulate; Section II contained disciplines on administration of 
measures; Section III contained a new element called i ndependence; Section IV covered 
provision s on transparency; Section V contained a provision on technical standards; and Section VI 
comprised disciplines on development of measures  as well as the  two separate paragraphs on 
gender equality and the necessity test.  
1.6.  The representative of South Africa  delivered a statement on behalf of the African Group . After 
the constructive discussions in March, June and July, the African Group looked forward to 
understanding how the amalgamation of proposals had addressed the issues raised by the Group. 
She informe d Members that the African Group had submitted a number of questions in 
JOB/SERV/269, which was the Group 's contribution to the on -going discussion in the WPDR.  
1.7.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  expressed doubts as to whether 
Members  could legitimately speak of a "consolidated " text when several paragraphs of the text 
were still in brackets, which showed that there was no agreement between the proponents 
themselves. He observed that the text had barely been modified at all and no chan ges to the 
substance of the proposals had been made, based on the exchanges in the last meeting of the 
Working Party. Rather,  co-sponsors had merely relocated some paragraphs from one place to 
another. He considered it incomprehensible that proponents insi sted on the inclusion of some 
paragraphs developed in TISA negotiations and wanted them to be discussed at the Ministerial 
Conference without chang es. Many Members had raised questions and issues of great importance 
in at least the last five sessions of th e Working Party, but none of them had been taken into 
account by the proponents. He considered the questions of the African Group to be very timely and  
many of the issues raised were shared by the delegation of Bolivia. He encouraged proponents to 
submit a nswers to the questions in writing, so that all Members could better understand the 
fundamentals of the consolidated text. Regarding the paper submitted by India, he noted that the 
document made textual proposals that took into account some of the concerns  previously raised S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 3 - 
 
  by the delegation of Bolivia. He was keen to see what treatment these two communications would 
receive in the Working Party, particularly on issues sensitive to most developing countries.  
1.8.  The representative of the Republic of Moldova  announced that her delegation would co -
sponsor the proposal on the necessity test from Chile; Hong Kong, China; New Zealand and 
Switzerland. She encouraged other Members to follow suit, as well as to continue extending the 
number of co -sponsors of the propos al on gender equality. She noted that several brackets were 
still open in the proposal to offer Members additional flexibilities in negotiating the language. The 
co-sponsors remained flexible  to negotiate with both developing and developed Members to 
narro w gap s, as soon as possible.  
1.9.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  expressed his delegation 's 
concerns that proponents had not taken into account the concerns brought up by several 
delegations before the summer break. This pointed to a lack of willingness to integrate various 
Members ' positions into their proposal,  and resulted in  the consolidated text 's failure  to meet the 
needs of developing and least -developed Members. He noted that the lack of convergence on 
domestic regulation dis ciplines between Members was a serious problem, which was amplified by 
the inclusion of several square brackets into the text.  
1.10.   The representative of Panama  expressed  her delegation 's commitment to the WPDR 
process, inter alia  by co -sponsoring the provisio n on gender equality. She mentioned that while 
Panama could support some provisions of the consolidated text, others, such as those related to 
technical standards, still required more consideration domestically. She believed that even though 
the consolidat ed text was a good basis for discussions, it was necessary to incorporate the notions 
of development and special and differential treatment for developing and least -developed countries 
into the text.  
1.11.   The representative of Swaziland  considered two earlier  statements by proponents to be 
contradictory . The delegation of the European Union had explained that the bracketed items had 
been left in those areas where the proponents were still to reach an agreement, whereas the 
delegation of Moldova had indicated th at the presence of brackets was a sign of flexibility. He also 
expressed doubts as to whether the consolidated text had been brought forward by the proponents 
in good faith.  
1.12.   The representative of Thailand  noted that while GATS Article VI:4 provided a clea r 
negotiating mandate on domestic regulation, Members still had different views on the specific 
details of the disciplines. In order to reach a deliverable in the area of domestic regulation, 
Members needed to work hard to bridge the gap s. She believed tha t it would be very difficult for 
WTO Members to reach consensus in the next two months on sensitive issues, such as necessity 
test and gender equality , and that their continued pursuit could further complicate the 
negotiations . She suggested that the Worki ng Party devote the limited time until the Ministerial 
Conference to a discussi on of those elements that were agreeable and less contentious in order to 
achieve a DR outcome by MC11.  
1.13.   The representative of Uganda  delivered a statement on behalf of the LDC G roup. He noted 
that the position of the LDC Group remained the same as had been expressed in the previous 
WPDR sessions of March, and June/ July. He recalled his previous interventions for the purposes of 
this meeting  and reiterated a few points that were not meant to diminish or undermine his earlier 
interventions. Ac cording to the WTO Secretariat N ote on market access of 19 September 2017, 
(WT/COMTD/LDC/W/65), in 2016 LDCs ' services exports had fallen by 4% to USD 32 bn, while 
imports were valued at USD 65 bn. It had been reported that LDCs accounted for 0.7% of world 
exports of commercial services, with a deficit of USD 33 bn. LDCs  were net commercial services  
importers. Assessment of the costs and benefits of DR rules depended on whether or not a 
Member  was a services exporter and faced various barriers entering other Members ' markets, or a 
net services i mporter. He considered that if LDCs were encouraged or required to undertake the 
proposed disciplines, they would be granting unfettered market access t o the proponents, which 
was contrary to the object, purpose and spirit of the LDC Waiver Decision. The waiver mechanism 
was meant to provide LDCs with a competitive edge over non -LDCs, so as to facilitate their 
integration into the multilateral trading sys tem. According to a 2016 UNCTAD Report on LDCs 
entitled "The Path to Graduation and Beyond ", 16 LDCs were projected to graduate by  2024. The 
report  further projected that another  32 LDCs would graduate by 2025. Hence, i n just eight years, 
no current Member  of the LDC Group within the WTO would qualify for any special and differential S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 4 - 
 
  treatment limited to LDCs only. Graduation would lead to loss of entitlement and as a result would 
limit policy space and flexibility in designing and implementing economic pol icies and strategies for 
economic diversification and development of productive capacities in the post -graduation period. It 
was important and necessary for LDCs to avoid the pitfalls of the later stages of development by 
establishing the foundations neede d to maintain solid sustainable development in the post -
graduation phase. It was crucial that WTO Members responded to the concerns raised by the LDCs 
and the African Group. It was important for LDCs to seek to understand the scope and breadth of 
obligatio ns that might accrue, should they be encouraged or obliged to implement the obligations 
upon graduation.  
1.14.   The representative of El Salvador  noted that her delegation shared a lot of the questions 
raised by the African Group and the LDC Group. The consolidated text contained various provisions 
that were of concern to her domestic authorities. Although many  provisions had been formulated 
as bes t endeavour obligations, there was no agreed understanding of the legal implications of such 
language. She underlined the need for specific provisions on special and differential treatment and 
noted that disciplines on transition periods would not be suffi cient. Likewise, it was important to 
include provisions on technical assistance and capacity building.  
1.15.   The representative of Bangladesh  noted that the consolidated text gave a clear picture of 
the individual proposals Members had been discussing for the pa st nine months. He enquired why 
the text, even though it covered licensing requirements and procedures, technical standards and 
qualification requirements, only directly referred to the above categories of measures in 
paragraphs 1.1 and 3.1  with the latter  still contain ing brackets  around these words . He 
encouraged the proponents to explain the use and meaning of the words "application " and 
"authorization ", namely to clarify which categories of measures proponents referred to when they 
employed these two ex pressions. He questioned the need to have a proposal on gender equality, 
and requested the proponents to explain how gender disciplines  fitted into trade disciplines.  
1.16.   The representative of Cuba expressed a number of concerns regarding the consolidated 
text. First, many delegations, particularly those of developing countries, had on a number of 
occasions before the summer break requested answers in writing to questions regarding the 
different proposals that had now been consolidated. Second, the consolidated  text brought 
together a number of earlier proposals but did not include any substantive progress. The text 
continued to exceed the mandate of Article VI:4 of the GATS and contained  intrusive language and 
unacceptable provisions. Third, she regretted that  special and differential treatment continued to 
be absent from the consolidated proposal. She e nquired whether there was genuine interest in 
responding to the concerns raised by developing Members and LDCs. She emphasized that in its 
current state, the doc ument was incomplete, even on the part of the proponents, as had been 
noted by several delegations. She e nquired how Members were meant to move forward with the 
text that was not sufficiently mature. She underlined that divergences  among Members still 
remained, therefore, as had been suggested in a number of meetings before the summer break, 
she considered it necessary for the Working Party to require full and exhaustive responses to 
questions raised by developing counties between March and July, i.e. quest ions that had been 
recorded in the minutes of previous meetings and in the document submitted by the African 
Group.  
1.17.   The representative of Indonesia  recalled WPDR discussions in early 2016, when Members 
had been considering what to do post -Nairobi and had collectively re -examined what disciplines 
they considered necessary under GATS Article VI:4 and how to deal with the existing deadlock in 
the WPDR. Administration of measures, development of measures, transparency, technical 
standards and development had been identified as key elements of interest to many Members. The 
consolidated text reflected many years of negotiations and struck a balance between ambition and 
do-ability. The delegation of Indonesia needed more time for domestic consultations, but could in 
general support the draft consolidated text. However, the element on necessity test had long been 
an obstacle to reaching an agreement on DR and Indonesia could not support this provision.  
1.18.   The representative of Kenya  associated himself with the statement made by South Africa on 
behalf of the African Group. He believed that the consolidated text would enable the understanding 
of how the different pa rts of the document were interlinked and, more importantly, it would help 
Members assess the extent to which their concerns had been taken into account.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.19.   The representative of Ecuador  stated that his delegation had expect ed to see a new text 
that reflected the concerns raised in previous meetings by several delegations. In the previous 
meeting, he had expressed Ecuador 's disagreement with the submission of a consolidated 
document  before discussions on the earlier proposals had been  exhausted. He attributed t he 
brackets contained in the text to the absence of consensus between the co -sponsors themselves 
and noted that this kind of situation indicated the need for an ample amount of work that the 
Working Party needed to carry out. Regarding the absence of the d evelopment component, he 
reiterated that the issue of development linked to flexibilities and special differential treatment was 
fundamental for Ecuador.  
1.20.   The representative of India introduced her delegation 's submission  (RD/SERV/145) , 
containing comments and textual suggestions to the consolidated text. She noted that significant 
work had already been undertaken by Members, as reflected in the Chair texts of 2009 and 2011.  
The DR 2011 text in particular had highlighted several clauses as having 'ad referen dum' 
agreement among Members. She e nquired why the proponents had adopted the approach of 
dissecting specific elements, only to consolidate them later on. As the introductory remarks to the 
consolidated text indicated, the text did not reflect the common p osition of all the proponents, and 
there appeared to be several aspects on which some co -sponsors were still consulting, and on 
which differences remained with regard to bracketed language. Three Members appeared to be 
proponents only of the proposal on ge nder equality, and not of the remaining aspects of the 
disciplines. There were footnotes in a few places where some of the proponents had reserved the 
right to still consider the disciplines. She asked the proponents to clarify what process should be 
followed on the way forward.  
1.21.   An overarching aspect of India 's concerns  was about what disciplines the consolidated text 
dealt with. Article 1.1 of the text stated that the proposed disciplines covered licensing 
requirements and procedures, qualificat ion require ments and procedures , and technical standards  
affecting trade in services where specific commitments had been undertaken. However, 
subsequently, there was varying usage of terms qualification requirements and procedures  and 
licensing requirements and proce dures  on the one hand, and the term "authorization " on the 
other. In this respect India sought several preliminary clarifications. She enquired whether the 
term "authorization " meant qualification requirements and procedures  and licensing requirements 
and procedures  or included technical standards as well, or whether "authorization " was something 
broader than all those aspects. In the latter case, she asked what exactly the co -sponsors meant 
by "authorization ". Why did Members need to use the notion of "authorization " at all, considering 
that the mandate under GATS Article VI:4 covered qualification requirements and procedures , 
licensing requirements and procedures  and technical standards only. She also asked why the 
proponents had not considered the defi nitions of the above terms that had been developed under 
the DR 2009/2011 texts. Articles 1.1, 3.2, 6.1 and 6.3 of the consolidated text used the terms 
qualification requirements and procedures  and licensing requirements and procedures , as well as 
technica l standards, whereas Article 6.2 only referred to qualification requirements and procedures  
and licensing requirements and procedures  but not technical standards. The entire Article 2 (2.1 
through 2.7), dealing with administration of measures, used the wor d "authorization " and not 
qualification requirements and procedures , or licensing requirements and procedures  or technical 
standards. She e nquired what the proponents meant by the terms "authorization ", "qualification 
requirements and procedures ", "licensi ng requirements and procedures " and "technical standards ". 
She noted that the DR 2009/2011 texts had dedicated separate sections on qualification 
requirements and procedures , licensing requirements and procedures  and technical standards. In 
the consolidate d text, however, the above terms had been addressed under various Articles , 
except for Article 2, which dealt with the undefined term "authorization ". The consolidated text 
also had a section dealing specifically with technical standards. She underlined th at crucial aspects 
relating to qualification requirements and procedures , especially with reference to recognition, had 
been left out. She enquired why the proponents felt the need to address technical standards 
separately, while qualification requirements  and procedures  and licensing requirements and 
procedures  had been merged and dealt with together.  The representative of India further noted 
that the consolidated text only contained a place holder for the development provision. She 
believed that the DR 20 09 and 2011 texts which had contained development sections  could form 
the basis for further discussions. She underscored that any engagement on the consolidated text 
would be subject to sound and clear provisions on special and differential treatment. In l ight of the 
above observations and in the spirit of positive engagement, India had submitted textual 
suggestions, including on transition periods and other aspects of particular concern for developing 
countries. The rationale for the suggested changes had also been explained in India 's document. S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 6 - 
 
  The suggestions were based on the text used in the Chair  texts of 2009 and 2011, and appropriate 
references to the sources had been made. The representative of India stressed that her 
delegation 's engagement on specific components of the text was contingent on obtaining further 
clarity on the issues raised above, and in particular, on the development dimension of the 
disciplines.  
1.22.   The representative of China  was of the view that the consolidated text and the India n paper 
were compl ementary and would form together a solid basis for an in -depth discussion.  
1.23.   The representative of Pakistan  noted that his delegation was positively disposed towards 
any disciplines on domestic regulation that  served the purpose of predicta bility and transparency 
and enhanced conditions for investment and development.  This included also provisions on 
necessity,  and also gender quality, which was a proposal that Pakistan was  co-sponsor ing. At the 
same time the delegation of Pakistan had been following the questions and clarifications sought by 
many Members, especially with regard to development. He believed that it was essential to 
address those issues to achieve a positive outcome.  
1.24.   The representative of Ukraine  shared the views of the co -sponsors regarding the 
development of DR disciplines and expressed her delegation 's general support for the consolidated 
text. 
1.25.   The representative of Turkey  believed that the current WPDR meeting would be vital for 
progress towards MC11. She noted that despite difficult discussions, Members had achieved an 
important point of consolidating a text. She mentioned the clear mandate of GATS Article VI:4 and 
stressed that Members had been discussing the proposed disciplines for quite some time. She 
noted that Turkey h ad just become an official co -sponsor of the text. She saw a possibility of 
having a tangible outcome at MC11 through an agreement on the consolidated text which was 
Members ' best hope for strengthening international trade in services.  
1.26.   The representative o f Rwanda  endorsed the statements made by South Africa on behalf of 
the African Group, Uganda on behalf of the LDC Group and other like -minded delegations. He 
stated that the co -sponsors had not made substantive changes to the text. He reminded the 
Working Party of the instructions given to Members by the Director General in the Heads of 
Delegations (HoDs) meeting, where the DG had suggested that Members should focus on issues 
where tangible progress was possible and drop issues on which no progress had been  made, 
addressing those latter issues with a paragraph in the Ministerial Declaration instead. He reiterated 
his delegation 's previous position that the proposed disciplines were intrusive into domestic policy 
making and would not be acceptable.  
1.27.   The repres entative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  recognized the important role of DR 
disciplines as a crucial element for sound developmental policy objectives. Regarding gender 
equality, she explained that despite the fact that Saudi regulations on trade and inves tment were 
gender neutral, it was not appropriate to include the gender dimension in trade agreements and 
WTO work. The issue of gender equality had no relationship with the GATS mandates and would 
only complicate DR negotiations. In contrast, the developm ent dimension should be at the centre 
of discussions. Her delegation was highly interested in preserving policy space that allowed 
governments to pursue development policy objectives through careful and effective regulation.  
1.28.   The representative of Costa Ri ca, as a co -sponsor of the consolidated text, maintained that 
domestic regulation disciplines would be beneficial for developing countries, and in particular their 
SMEs. The consolidated text fell in line with the mandate of GATS Article VI:4, recognized t he right 
to regulate and contained sufficiently flexible language to be adapted to the different legal regimes 
of various WTO Members. By fulfilling the WPDR mandate and developing the disciplines WTO 
Members would contribute to ensuring transparency, inde pendence, better governance and 
facilitating trade by recognizing Members ' right to regulate.  
1.29.   The representative of Peru informed Members that his delegation was very close to 
concluding the internal consultations with a view to becoming a co -sponsor of th e consolidated 
text. He emphasized his delegation 's readiness to continue the WPDR work with a view to reaching 
an agreement on various issues of concern, notably that of special and differential treatment for 
developing countries.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.30.   The representative of Nigeria reminded delegations that Members had been asking the co -
sponsors to provide a consolidated text for a long time in order to be able to make a 
comprehensive assessment of the disciplines, instead of following a piece meal approach. He noted 
that the development chapter was still missing and looked forward to seeing it as part of the 
consolidated text. He associated himself with the statement made by South Africa on behalf of the 
African Group, particularly as regards the questions  posed by the African  Group , and encouraged 
the proponents to attend to those questions and concerns. He pointed out that the delegation of 
Nigeria was neither a demandeur , nor an opponent of domestic regulation discussions. Nigeria saw 
merit in robust domestic regulation disc iplines, particularly those that enhanced developing 
countries ' regulatory capacity, efficiency and effectiveness, with an appropriate development 
chapter. He informed Members that  the Nigerian government promoted transparency as part of 
the national econo mic agenda, as it linked domestic regulation with investment facilitation and 
encouraged investment. Members  also needed to preserve the right to regulate and strike an 
appropriate balance between the need for DR disciplines and regulatory circumstances of 
developing countries and LDCs. He pointed to the need to include reference to "Members ' domestic 
laws" to provide  flexibility for developing countries, particularly those who would need to amend 
domestic laws to comply with the proposed disciplines. The preservation of domestic law was 
essential, particularly in relation to application time frames, electronic applica tions and acceptance 
of copies. Regarding the issue of fees, he suggested including a clarificatory footnote addressing 
the reasonability and transparency of fees.  
1.31.   The representative of Paraguay  recognized the importance of domestic regulation disciplines  
and supported further work on domestic regulation. He underscored his delegation 's full support of 
Members who had spoken in favour of strong special and differential treatment provisions for 
developing countries. He considered the square brackets left op en by the proponents as an 
indication of their flexibility and readiness to discuss specific language with  the rest of the 
membership.  
1.32.   The representative of Uruguay  considered the consolidated text to be a good basis for 
continuing work on disciplines on domestic regulation.  
1.33.   The representative of Egypt  recalled his previous WPDR statements. He underscored that 
the delegation of Egypt could not go along with the two proposals on necessity test and gender 
equality. In order to achieve an outcome at MC11, Me mbers should focus on realistic, doable and 
meaningful results, and be open to exploring new approaches. The outcome of the negotiations 
had to be balanced. It had to provide adequate policy space and address the needs of developing 
countries by maintainin g the development dimension as an overarching principle in the 
negotiations.  A stronger emphasis needed to be put on the protection of the right to regulate 
especially for developing countries, and language was needed that would make it clear that the 
disciplines must not be interpreted and applied in a manner that limited or restricted the right to 
regulate trade in services in the public interest. Paragraph 1.2 of the consolidated text 
"recognized " the right to regulate. The verb "recognize " was defined a s "acknowledging the 
existence, legality, or validity of (something) by formal approval or sanction ". The legal 
implications of paragraph 1.2 of the consolidate text remained unclear. Normally, the verb 
"recognize " did not connote a specific obligation for  Members. Against this background, and 
borrowing language from the existing WTO agreements, he proposed a textual suggestion to  the 
beginning of  paragraph 1.2 that read as "Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit and 
restrict the right of Mem bers, and especially of developing country Members  to regulate and to 
introduce new regulations (…) ". In addition, Egypt proposed to include a provision mandating that 
"[A]ll exceptions and exemptions under the GATS shall apply to the provisions of this ag reement 
or instrument ". Regarding the issue of development and special and differential treatment 
provisions, the delegation of Egypt was surprised to see only a  place holder in the consolidated 
text. He asked the proponents to include transitional periods  to deal with the asymmetry of 
regulations between developed and developing countries, capacity building and technical 
assistance to deal with the difficulties faced by services suppliers from developing countries who 
faced regulatory systems away from hom e. The representative of Egypt supported the proposal by 
India to start the discussion based on the 2009 and 2011 Chair texts.  
1.34.   The representative of the European Union  recognized the important contribution of the 
African Group 's submission to the discussion and noted that some of the questions had indeed 
been raised for quite a long time . He stated that some of the questions had already been 
answered, and were contained in the previ ous report s of WPDR meetings . In its communication S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 8 - 
 
  JOB/SERV/269, th e African Group stated that its "preliminary assessment indicated that the 
provisions were intended to prescribe or impose particular regulatory approaches and this would 
significantly constrain African Members ' right to regulate for legitimate public poli cy objectives ". 
The EU disagreed with the view that the proposed text on domestic regulation would prescribe or 
impose a particular regulatory approach. Instead, the proposal defined goals for regulatory 
practices. By ensuring objectivity, transparency, and impartiality, the co -sponsors intended to 
create obligations to achieve a given outcome. However, the way this outcome or objective was 
achieved was left to the discretion of each Member, in respect of its constitutional system and 
regulatory culture. He  acknowledged the concerns raised by some Members in this regard and for 
this very reason, the text proposal had been adapted and the issue had been clarified in a very 
explicit manner in paragraph 1.2.  The proposed disciplines, by applying to existing com mitments 
only and being only about licensing and qualifications, would not affect or constrain the right to 
regulate. The proposed disciplines would not prevent a state from achieving a particular set of 
domestic objectives, such as environmental or labour  policy, as long as when it came to 
qualifications, licensing requirements and procedures, Members complied with the broad objectives 
of objectivity and transparency. The consolidated text was about defining common objectives for 
the measures relating to q ualifications and licensing in sectors where Members had undertaken 
commitments. He expressed  the view that objectivity, transparency and impartiality were shared 
goals of WTO Members. In order for the proponents to better understand where the concerns cou ld 
lie, he encouraged Members to voice their concerns in a more concrete fashion, e.g. on the basis 
of sector -based or country -based examples of how the proposed disciplines would constrain the 
right to regulate in a way that was contrary to those shared g oals mentioned above. The EU was 
looking forward to hearing how, for some African Group Members, the implementation of those 
disciplines in sectors where Members of the Group had taken commitments, would curtail their 
right to regulate.  
1.35.   In relation to the African Group 's question on whether the disciplines were necessary in 
accordance with GATS Article VI:4, he made some additional clarifications. The consolidated text 
was not a general obligation on all services regulation s, but only on qualifications, lic ensing and 
technical standards that were required in the context of an authorization, hence the disciplines 
fitted perfectly within the boundaries of the GATS Article VI:4 mandate. The proposal was about 
defining common objectives for the measures relating  to qualifications and licensing in sectors 
where Members had commitments. Those disciplines were necessary to ensure predictability, legal 
certainty and efficiency of the authorization processes that services suppliers faced around the 
world when they wis hed to provide services. It was a necessary and valuable complement to 
market access and national treatment commitments.  With respect to the question on what 
circumstances or specific issues had led to the suspension of the domestic regulation negotiations  
in the past and whether those circumstances had changed, the co -sponsors did indeed believe that 
the circumstances had changed. In the past domestic regulation negotiations could not be 
concluded because of unnecessary linkages with other areas that some Members had established, 
and not because of the nature of the matter. Since the Bali Ministerial, WTO Members had started 
to look at an incremental and bite -sized approach to delivering on the WTO agenda. In this 
context, delivering on the 20 year old mand ate of domestic regulation seemed to be particularly 
appropriate and timely. In this context, the proponents had chosen a different approach than back 
in 2009 and 2011, hoping that a simplified approach would allow Members to make progress more 
quickly. Th e proponents were still covering a similar scope, as in 2009 and 2011, while avoiding 
the duplication of rules when disciplines were similar for qualifications and for licensing.  
1.36.   The African Group had raised a very pertinent question by asking whether ther e was a clear 
economic rationale for adopting DR disciplines, and what the evidence was that benefits from the 
proposed disciplines would accrue to all Members. As a matter of fact, the EU was moving forward 
with its proposal on domestic regulation, based on strong evidence of the economic benefits of 
such regulatory disciplines. As explained at the last WPDR meeting, those disciplines had already 
been part of EU 's internal practice for a long time and had been consolidated in the "Services 
Directive ", whic h had been evaluated over the years. Economic research had shown that the 
current state of implementation of those rules had led to a 0.8% increase in GDP. However, the 
impact could go up to more than 1.5% in some EU Member States depending on the importan ce of 
services for those Member States. Positive impacts on trade and FDI had also been identified. As a 
consequence, the proponents were confident that the proposal would represent a positive 
contribution to the economic development of WTO Members. In par ticular, the proponents saw 
grounds to believe that those disciplines would support structural transformation in Africa.  With 
respect to the questions on the costs entailed by introducing the new obligations, and who would S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 9 - 
 
  bear them, taking into account th e consideration of different capabilities amongst the Members, 
the EU had always been mindful of the potential need, for some developing countries, to initiate 
reforms through the implementation of the disciplines. The EU was looking forward to discussing 
the section on development in the consolidated text. That discussion should allow Members to 
identify clearly wha t was needed to facilitate the  implementation of the disciplines by all WTO 
Members. Second, in a situation where such implementation would inv olve costs, the 
representative of the EU was confident that development cooperation and technical assistance 
programmes run by the EU were relevant in this context. As a matter of fact, existing programmes 
were already available to support regulatory refor ms. More specifically, the support for building 
and updating the national regulatory frameworks was foreseen to be part of the revised 
disciplines.  
1.37.   The African Group had also questioned whether the co -sponsors had failed to address 
problems in some WTO Mem bers through various remedies and for this reason they turned to the 
WTO. This was not the approach the proponents were pursuing. The proponents were looking to 
establish global regulatory benchmarks and not solve bilateral trade irritants.  With respect to  the 
links with e -commerce, investment and the digital economy, it was important to remember that 
the disciplines would apply to modes of supply and sectors, as committed by Members. The 
disciplines did not regulate the services econom ies of Members, but p rovided a  series of guidelines 
for authorization schemes, whether the service was provided online or not.  In response to the 
question raised by Bangladesh on the scope of the text, the representative of the EU confirmed 
that the scope of the proposal and e ach of its disciplines was limited to five categories of measures 
indicated in paragraph 1.1, which were the exact same categories contained in GATS Article VI:4.  
1.38.   The representative of Nigeria  posed two questions to the proponents. The f irst question 
related to paragraph 6.2 on gender equality, where he indicated that Nigeria didn 't have a ny 
gender bias in its laws. He e nquired as to the meaning of footnote 10 to paragraph 6.2 and 
whether the footnote had any relationship with Members ' domestic laws. The second question 
related to the in -built flexibilities proponents had referred to and asked the proponents to identify 
and clarify them. He stressed that the development chapter shou ld not be undermined and 
enquired whether using the TFA  approach could facilitate the discussion.  
1.39.   The representative of Australia  noted that both submissions by the African Group and the 
LDC Group were useful in focusing the discussion in a very concrete way. In relation to India 's 
question about why the propo nents needed a consolidated text and why they couldn 't work on the 
basis of the previous Chair texts, she clarified that the proponents had tried for many years to 
return to text -based negotiations on the basis of the Chair texts, but it had become clear t hat 
there was not sufficient support for using those texts as a basis for negotiations. Therefore, the 
proponents had wanted to find a way to move past the stalemate. The elements that had been put 
forward by the proponents since 2016 were a way of trying to reinvigorate the discussions in 
response to calls from Members for new proposals that were balanced, pragmatic, middle -ground 
solutions that could find a way forward in WPDR negotiations. Regarding the brackets in the 
consolidated text, she explained th at they reflected the openness of the proponents and the 
ongoing discussions within the group of the proponents and with other Members. The consolidated 
text was not intended as a final outcome of DR negotiations. The text was not submitted in a "take 
it or leave it " spirit, but rather represented a working development. She particularly emphasized 
the development section that still required a lot of work. She invited all Members to provide their 
inputs into the consolidated text in order to find language so lutions that would work for all 
Members.  
1.40.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  provided further answers to some questions 
submitted by the African Group. Regarding the difference in pursuing bilateral versus multilateral 
ways of dealing with domestic regu lation disciplines, he recalled some Members ' suggestions that 
bilateral actions could be used to deal with trade barriers. He stated that bilateral actions and 
multilateral solutions were not mutually exclusive: a Member could take bilateral actions while  at 
the same time pursuing multilateral disciplines. There seemed to be no reason why bilateral 
opportunities had to be exhausted before working on a multilateral framework. Like many other 
Members, Hong Kong, China was a small delegation with limited reso urces, hence it preferred a 
multilateral platform so that the important issues could be handled with all Members 
together.  Hong Kong, China did not have the resources to launch many bilateral actions and 
therefore relied on the multilateral platform, which  offered the same benefits to other developing 
Members and LDCs. In his view, the value of the WTO was in the fact that even small economies S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 10 - 
 
  could use the same platform to negotiate as the big economies, and ask the bigger economies to 
observe the same rul es. For that reason Hong Kong, China had always been a strong supporter of 
the multilateral trading system ; he encouraged all Members to make use of the same platform for 
domestic regulation disciplines to bind both big economies and small economies.  Regar ding the 
question on the relationship between domestic regulation and e -commerce, in the view of Hong 
Kong, China, there was no relationship between the two. Although the delegation of Hong Kong, 
China was a demandeur  of both domestic regulation and e -comm erce discussions, those were two 
completely different sets of issues that required different considerations.  Hong Kong, China did not 
see any relationship between the proposed disciplines with the growing digital economy 
either.  Domestic regulation discipl ines should be applicable whether or not the services sectors in 
question were digitalized. The proposed disciplines had been developed based on the GATS Article 
VI:4 mandate that had been negotiated before the work programme on electronic commerce was 
drawn up.  
1.41.   The representative  of Colombia  provided his delegation 's answers to questions posed by the 
African Group. Regarding the capacity of different Members to implement disciplines and the costs 
of meeting the proposed obligations, he noted that Colombia was a net importer of services, with 
only a limited number of services sectors being export -oriented. The main benefit of the proposed 
disciplines was in generating potential for any Colombian company to export its services without 
necessarily importing in to the economy. He gave the  example of a number of innovative IT 
companies whose exports from Colombia were still limited, so the best solution in this case was to 
have minimum regulation that would bring down barriers to further expansion. Regarding the c ost 
of introducing new obligations, the Colombian government had received support from the national 
businesses, as domestic regulation improvements had led to improvements in the ease of doing 
business for local companies as well. Another example of suppor t received from the Colombian 
private sector was the implementation of a law on the rationaliz ation of procedures for accepting 
copies of documents and collecting fees. The above disciplines would improve the position of all 
companies operating in Colombia , regardless of their origin.  
1.42.   The representative of New Zealand  reminded Members of the mandate in GATS Article VI:4 
and noted that Members could not have had a clearer mandate than that coming from a treaty 
level agreement between all Members. However, some Members had still asked whether the 
disciplines were necessary. From New Zealand 's perspective, and that of almost fifty other 
Members who had co -sponsored the text, the answer was clearly yes. The GATS focused on 
market access but it also recognized that this was not in itself sufficient and this is why Members 
had the mandate of Article VI:4 to address domestic regulation and ensure that market access 
opportunities in sectors that Members had chosen to liberalize could actually be fulfilled. Domestic  
regulation disciplines were essentially about good governance and provided benefits to the host 
country. Domestic services suppliers and consumers benefitted from these disciplines, and they 
could also help the host country in attracting trade and investm ent. Domestic regulation disciplines 
were also of interest to foreign services suppliers, as they ensured that existing market access and 
national treatment commitments were not undermined through opaque or overly burdensome 
licensing or qualification requ irements and procedures, or technical standards.  She was of the view 
that t here was a clear economic rationale for the proposed disciplines. Despite the fact that many 
domestic regulat ory barriers were often less visible than entry restrictions like equity  caps, joint 
venture requirements or restrictions on cross -border delivery, the government of New Zealand 
heard regular complaints from exporters and investors about the administrative barriers they had 
to navigate in order to be approved to do business in  a range of international markets.  New 
Zealand had recently undertaken another round of outreach domestically, and the message from 
the services suppliers was the same.  These types of administrative barriers could be 
insurmountable for micro -, small and me dium enterprises, and could be the difference between 
entering a market, or staying in a market, or not. These  types of businesses  would not have the 
time or resources to access those markets where opaque , open -ended, expensive and burdensome 
processes prevailed,  regardless of how good that country 's national treatment or market access 
commitments were. Concerns had also been expressed over the impact of the disciplines on the 
right to regulate.  In this regard, it was important to note the scope of the disc iplines. While 
Members referred to "domestic regulation " in shorthand, what they were really referring to was a 
very limited subset of regulation. As set out in the GATS, the disciplines would only apply to 
measures relating to licensing and qualification requirements and procedures and technical 
standards. Further, the disciplines would only apply to sectors where commitments had been 
scheduled, and subject to any limitations.  It remained for each Member to choose whether to open 
a sector, and whether it n eeded to schedule any limitations for discriminatory measures. It was S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 11 - 
 
  not proposed that t he disciplines  apply to the entire services economy . As the representative of 
the European Union had already explained, the proposed set of principles disciplined the  process 
rather than the substance of Members ' regulation. The disciplines did not prevent Members from 
regulating in any specific sector or pursuing any particular regulatory objective. The right to 
regulate existed for all Members, regardless of whether t he proponents included it in the 
text. There was a level of flexibility built into the disciplines that had not been present in previous 
discussions and which further respected different regulatory regimes.  Some Members had pointed 
to their different capab ilities, and it was important to note that there was a development chapter 
in the consolidated text, with a clear indication that its content was still to be elaborated.  
1.43.   The representative of Mexico  stated  that the GATS Article VI:4 mandate clearly covered  the 
proposed disciplines. Members had h eld many discussions in the WPDR , and the consolidated text 
brought together fruits of this work, while preserving the right to regulate reflected in paragraph 
1.2, and preserving policy space. She reminded Members t hat the disciplines only applied to 
committed sectors. The consolidated text struck the necessary balance between ambition and do -
ability, as it included flexibilities to cover all realities on the ground. The advantage of the 
consolidated text lay in the various expressions of the soft language,  contained in many 
provisions. The proponents were ready to include further flexibilities to increase the chances of 
having an MC11 deliverable in domestic regulation.  
1.44.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  picked up on the question by the African Group 
regarding the economic rationale of the proposed disciplines and explained that the growth of the 
services sector had a positive impact on the economy. Services in Korea accounted for almost 70% 
of the economy. A ccording to the Bank of Korea, the job creation effect of services was almost 
twice as high as that of the manufacturing sector. The area of DR disciplines was very important 
for Korea. Multilateral rules ensuring objectivity and transparent domestic regul ations reduce d 
uncertainty and create a global environment conducive to trade in services. Regarding the 
question o f whether it was better to resolve issues bilaterally, she supported the point made by 
Hong Kong, China that multilateral rules and FTAs were  mutually reinforcing. Multilateral rules 
were particularly important for MSMEs. The proposed disciplines would enhance services industries 
and contribute to further economic growth. Article VI:5 of the GATS was very important but 
Members needed an additional guarantee and more specificity on the disciplines to make 
multilateral rules more robust.  
1.45.   The Chairperson  invited delegations to take note of the statements  made.  
1.46.   It was so agreed . 
1.1  General Provisions  
1.47.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  introd uced the general provisions section of the 
consolidated text, namely its two subparagraphs: 1.1 on the scope and 1.2 on the right to 
regulate. Paragraph 1.1 set the scope of the proposed disciplines to licensing requirements and 
procedures, qualification r equirements and procedures and technical standards. Replying to  India's 
question why various parts of the proposal only mentioned certain  categories of measures out of 
those five mentioned in paragraph 1.1 , he emphasized that paragraph 1.1 set out the maxi mum 
scope of application, meaning the disciplines would not go into anything beyond the five elements 
already mentioned in GATS Article VI:4. Secondly, it was important that the proposed disciplines 
would only be applicable to those measures affecting trad e in services. Thirdly, the disciplines 
would only cover the sectors in which Members had made specific commitments. Fourthly, the 
proposed disciplines would not be applicable to any terms, limitations and conditions set out in a 
Member 's schedule pursuant  to GATS Article XVI and XVII. Members had made drafting changes to 
this last part of the paragraph, as compared to the previous draft but the substance remained the 
same. The co -sponsors wanted to demonstrate that the proposed disciplines were not applica ble to 
limitations laid out in a schedule, so they used the exact terms from GATS Article XVI and XVII in 
their consolidated proposal.  
1.48.   Paragraph 1.2 of the consolidated text addressed the right to regulate. In the view of Hong 
Kong, China this paragraph w as not particularly necessary in terms of substance, as the notions 
contained therein  were already enshrined in the GATS. As many Members had considered the 
language to be  very important , co-sponsors had retained it to provide Members with assurance S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 12 - 
 
  that t he proposed disciplines had no intention of touching upon Members ' right to regulate. 
Paragraph 1.2 was inherited from the two previous development of measures proposals by 
Australia and Hong Kong, China. Due to the fact that in the course of the consultat ions not all 
proponents felt comfortable with the term "national ", they decided to leave square brackets to 
reflect the on -going nature of the conversation on this subject. He agreed with Members who 
maintained that square brackets had been left in the tex t to actually provide alternatives to a 
wider group of Members. Regarding the issue of varying regulatory approaches, Members 
definitely had the right to choose how to regulate their economy and services sectors. The 
proposed disciplines did not obligate M embers to regulate or deregulate. It was up to Members to 
choose whatever form of regulation they wanted to have. It was also clear that the proposed 
disciplines did not require a particular legal system and were applicable to Members with different 
regula tory regimes. The proponents themselves had regulatory dissimilarities, inter alia  because of 
the difference between civil and common law legal systems. The representative of Hong Kong, 
China thanked the representative of Egypt for the suggestions on the p aragraph and promised that 
the proponents would consider them.  
1.49.   The representative of Nigeria  supported  the views expressed by Egypt and considered  the 
current language on the right to regulate in paragraph 1.2 to be a little bit weak. He urged the 
proponents to consider strengthening the language for the benefits of all Members  by finding a 
better expression than "to recognize " the right to regulate . There was a difference between 
recognizing the right and giving effect to that right . Members ' right to regulate was in a way 
beyond recognition as that right existed in a manner that was not questionable. He stressed that 
the language on the right to regulate set the tone for the whole proposal and only after 
strengthening this provision could Members begin to understand what kind of obligations would 
arise from the proposed disciplines. In terms of the comfort level proponents had been trying to 
provide Members with, he encouraged them to point out the in -built flexibilities of the 
proposal.  The delegat ion of Nigeria  considered domestic regulation disciplines important. He, asked 
whether the TFA approach could be replicated in domestic regulation, as it was a tested and well -
functioning model. He saw nothing wrong in replicating a good existing model. Re garding the 
references  to Members ' domestic laws, he e nquired where the boundaries of applicability of 
domestic laws were, namely whether domestic laws would apply unequivocally in any context, or 
not. He pointed out that his delegation was not a proponent , but was open to have a balanced 
outcome that would not create problems in terms of implementation and capacity.  
1.50.   The representative of India introduced the suggestions India had included in their 
submission. She emphasized that comments and textual sugges tions India would be making in the 
course of the current meeting were without prejudice to India 's further review, understanding and 
refining of the views. In the chapter on general provisions, India had introduced two changes to 
the consolidated text. The  first change was an additional sentence in paragraph 1.2 and the 
second was the addition of sub -paragraph  1.3. She explained that India had tried to reflect the 
language of the GATS preamble and the 2011 Chair text. The ultimate objective of doing so was to 
provide reasonable comfort to developing countries in addressing their concerns and engaging 
them in this very important discussion. None of the language suggestions were new, as Members 
had discussed this language in the WPDR and in capitals for twenty  years. If the suggested 
language gave comfort to developing countries to come and engage, there should be no problem 
for the proponents to include the language in the text . 
1.51.   The representative of China  noted that some proponents of certain elements were no t 
necessarily proponents of other s. He asked the proponents to clarify whether all of them were in 
agreement that the general provisions applied to all elements contained in the consolidated text, in 
particular that all the obligations would only apply to scheduled commitments.  
1.52.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  confirmed that the co -sponsors had agreed that all 
proposals would only be applicable to scheduled commitments. Regarding Nigeria 's comment  on 
capacity constraints , he stated that the proponent s recognized that some Members faced  capacity 
limitations  and attached great importance to the right to regulate.  
1.53.   The representative of India noted that her delegation 's submission focused on three issues 
on which clarity  was required for future  engage ment in the process. The first issue that was of the 
utmost importance to the entire architecture of the consolidated text related to  the term 
"authorization ". She e nquired what proponents meant by "authorization " and what they were 
trying to cover with th is term. In its submission India was proposing a definition of "authorization " S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 13 - 
 
  and all the categories of measures from GATS Article VI:4. Technical standards were not included 
in the proposed definition of "authorization ". The definitions were based on lan guage from the 
Chair text that was familiar to all Members , and might therefore be a good starting point . 
1.54.   The representative of Nigeria  requested a clarification on why the word "national " was in 
square  brackets in paragraph 1.2 and e nquired whether this w as a drafting issue or a matter of 
substance.  
1.55.   The representative of Canada  stated that from Canada 's perspective,  "authorization " meant 
the granting of permission to a person to supply a service. He was sympathetic to the Indian 
suggestion on the definitio n, but felt that the proposed suggestion might be a  bit circular in this 
context.  
1.56.   The representative of Switzerland  expressed his  sympath y for the Indian idea  on definition . 
Most of the Indian proposal was familiar to Members, given that that was the text  that most 
Members had agreed to six years ago. Switzerland supported the Chair text as well as the co -
sponsors ' text on the table. In line with the negotiating mandate, the term "authorization " included 
measures relating to the categories of measures mentioned in the WPDR mandate. Switzerland 
considered the definitions proposed by India acceptable and noted that his delegation could 
subscribe to them. Switzerland was also sympathetic to the disc ussion among Members to clarify 
the terms used in this text.  
1.57.   The representative of India noted that her delegation was seeking clarity as to what 
Members were trying to regulate. GATS Article VI:4 talked of five elements and so did the 
consolidated text. She noted that the delegation of India would be happy to drop the term 
"authorization " altogether to make the text simpler and clearer in terms of applicability of the 
proposed disciplines to various DR elements.  
1.58.   The representative of Australia  did not  see a particular need for definitions for the  text, as 
all elements could be read as having their ordinary meaning. She was, however, certainly open to 
the inclusion of definitions if other Members felt strongly that this would add  value . There might be 
some scope to improve or streamline the drafting of the WPDR Chair text definitions and noted 
that at least four of those definitions had been agreed ad referendum previously, and Members 
shouldn 't tinker too much with them. Judging by the past experience in WP DR, it might be difficult 
for Members to reach an agreement on the definition of technical standard s. From Australia 's 
perspective, technical standards were a fundamental element of GATS Article VI:4 and if Members 
were to have definitions, they would need  to see definitions of all five elements of Article VI:4. 
Australia could not accept the inclusion of definitions without a specific reference to technical 
standards.  
1.59.   In response to the question on the meaning of "authorization ", Australia understood the 
term to mean any grant ing of permission to supply a service, which included all the elements of 
the GATS Article VI:4 mandate. In Australia 's view, "authorization " could also include technical 
standards. She provided an example of a tourist operator, who w as required to have a licence in 
order to provide tourism services. In this case that licence would be one form of authorization. If 
instead of a licence a tourism operator was required to be a member of a tourism authority, and a 
condition of that members hip was compliance with certain tourism standards, then those 
standards would be a type of authorization requirement. Some Members saw this sort of 
requirement as a licensing requirement, while other considered it to be a qualification requirement, 
or a te chnical standard. While the proponents would be very happy to include a definition of 
"authorization " if it was needed to clarify the meaning of the term, they would need to have 
measures like technical standards, which were adopted by some Members as an a lternative form 
of authorization, to be covered. She considered  that the ordinary meaning of the term was 
sufficiently clear and quoted a definition from the Oxford English dictionary that defined 
"authorization " as "a document giving official permission ". If Members were to include a definition 
of "authorization ", the delegation of Australia would suggest something more general such as 
"authorization meaning the grant ing of a permission to supply a service ".  
1.60.   The representative of India recalled that in he r opening statement , she had laid out three 
threshold issues for further engagement on DR disciplines. The first issue related to clearly 
understanding what the term "authorization " included and whether it included LICENSING S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 14 - 
 
  REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES  and qualification requirements and procedures , or TS as well, 
or whether it was broader than all of the above. She was of the view  that even though proponents 
had attempted to explain the meaning of "authorization ", they appeared not to  have a common 
understanding of the term and had left the term undefined for that reason. The proponents had 
explained that "authorization " was a grant of any type of permit or permission to supply services 
that included any types of measures relating to a ll the elements of the mandate of Article VI:4 of 
the GATS, namely qualification requirements and procedures , licensing requirements and 
procedures  and TS, affecting trade in services. At the same time some other proponents had 
stated that TS was not part of the definition of "authorization ". Another impression Members got 
from proponents ' explanations was that "authorization " could be interpreted as something broader 
than the five categories of measures listed in Article VI:4.  
1.61.   She noted that the term "affecting trade in services " lent itself to a very wide interpretation. 
She e nquired whether any kind of land or environmental permit that might be required in the 
ordinary course of business for setting up an establishment would also be included in the scope  of 
the disciplines. The lack of a definition of "authorization " opened a door to vagueness and 
ambiguity, especially as measures "affecting trade in services " could be interpreted very broadly. 
Whereas the proponents did not see the need to have the defin itions and relied on ordinary 
meaning of the terms, the representative of India noted that by agreeing to a set of legally binding 
DR disciplines Members were creating a set of legal rights and obligations on a vast  number  of 
measures that affected trade i n services . It was important to understand the exact obligations on 
Members that would implement these disciplines , and to comprehend what the obligations applied 
to; thus it was paramount to define all the terms that were used throughout the text and 
some times interchangeably. She pointed out to the explanation, given by Hong Kong, China that 
paragraph 1.1. set out the maximum scope of the disciplines. In the proponents ' text there was 
varying applicability of the disciplines and obligations o n specific el ements of DR. She e nquired 
why the proponents had cherry picked stronger DR disciplines for some types of measures and 
weaker disciplines for others. Proponents needed to provide clarity and build comfort and 
confidence in the process for any meaningful en gagement by Members.  
1.62.   The representative of Australia  welcomed the opportunity to continue the discussion on 
"authorization " and definitions because it was fundamental to have a concrete understanding of 
the scope of the proposal and how the scope related t o each of the disciplines. It was the intention 
of the proponents that all the provisions of the text were subject to paragraph 1.1, i.e. that the 
disciplines applied to licensing requirements and procedures , qualification requirements and 
procedures  and technical standards  and only where Members had scheduled commitments. There 
was no disagreement between the co -sponsors on what "authorization " covered. There was some 
debate between the co -sponsors on which measures would be deemed to be described as a 
licensing requirement , qualification requirement  or a technical standard . She recalled the example 
from the tourism sector she had provided earlier , where a tourism operator was required to meet 
certain requirements in order to provide tourism services and how these requirements might fall 
into the category of licensing requirements  in one Member, technical standards  in another 
Member, and qualificat ion requirements  in a different Member. Defining "authorization " as 
"permission to provide a service " was the same as the ordinary meaning of the term.  
1.63.   The representative of Bangladesh  noted that his delegation was still unsure if the term 
"authorization " covered licensing requirements and procedures , or qualification requirements and 
procedures , or technical standards . It was better to be very specific in what exactly the proponents 
meant by "authorization ". It seemed from the text that "authorization " went beyond the above 
mentioned categories of measures. He encouraged the proponents to provide an appropriate 
clarification.  
1.64.   The representative of India noted that Members needed to obtain clarity on what the 
proponents were trying to discipline. She asked whether the co -sponsors had tried to discipline the 
process of granting a permission, which had been defined as "authorization ", or the five elements 
of GATS Article VI:4 that formed the process of granting a permission. She stressed that  the 
Article VI:4 mandate was for the disciplines and not the process of granting a permission. The 
process in question was much wider than the five elements. For example , if for a certain service, a 
fire clearance requirement was needed  to supply a service , would the autho rization which required 
a permission to get a fire clearance also be subject to the proposed disciplines. She asked whether 
the scope of the consolidated text included disciplines on the process of granting permission . S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.65.   The representative of the European Un ion stated that "authorization " was a term the co -
sponsors used frequently , and which  was also used in the Chair text, including in the definitions of 
inter alia  licensing procedures and qualification requirements. The proponents had tried to define 
"autho rization " in the past in the WPDR , but that proved very difficult. An attempt to define the 
term "authorization " in 2011 did not gain any real traction. The present discussion was useful for 
everyone to have a clear understanding what the text covered. With regard to India's concern with 
the reference to "affecting trade in services " and its broad meaning , he noted that t he language in 
paragraph 1.1 referred to "measures by Members relating to licensing requirements and 
procedures , qualification requirem ents and procedures , technical standards " which was the whole 
landscape that was further narrowed down to those measures "affecting trade in services ", where 
Members had specific commitments. The language in question should be read as limiting rather 
than broadening the scope of the consolidated proposal. Regarding the fire clearance requirement 
example provided by India, he asked whether this requirement would be limited to getting an 
authorization to supply a service and  if that was not the case,  the requ irement in question would 
fall outside of the scope of proposed disciplines. The delegation of the European Union welcomed 
this debate and was ready to engage with all Members with a purpose of finding a solution in the 
form of either adding a definition, or a clarificatory footnote.  
1.66.   The representative of Switzerland  stated that  paragraph 1.1 of the consolidated text and the 
Chair text contained the same sentence quoted by the representative of the EU and referred to 
measures by Members "relating to " licens ing requirements and procedures , qualification 
requirements and procedures  and technical standards  and "affecting trade in services ", where 
Members had undertaken specific commitments. He expressed his delegation 's readiness to 
provide more clarity in the form of a clarification, or a footnote, but underlined that all Members 
already shared an understanding that the five categories of measures contained in the mandate of 
GATS Article VI:4 were the ones that all Members intended to cover.  
1.67.   The representative of Bangladesh  was of the view  that the term "authorization " seemed 
very broad. He pointed out that in GATS Article VI:3 , "authorization " was handled separately and 
expressed his delegation 's view that in GATS Article VI:4 "authorization " was not covered. He 
considered  that the issue of "authorization " should be handled separately and challenged the 
appropriateness of the term.  
1.68.   The representative of Peru saw "authorization " in and of itself as only one element that 
could be related to licensing requirements and procedures, qualifications requirements and 
procedures, and technical standards. This was due to the fact that the disciplines dealt not only 
with processes that were  not related to the issuance of an authorization, but also, for example, 
with the transparency of legislati ve processes. Under the mandate the scope of the disciplines was 
limited to five elements the co -sponsors had always referred to. He made a suggestio n to consider 
addressing the concerns of some Members by modifying the first sentence of paragraph 1.1 of the 
consolidated text and making a reference to the disciplines applying only to measures relating to 
licensing requirements and procedures , qualifica tion requirements and procedures  and technical 
standards . 
1.69.   The representative of Canada  agreed with the representatives of the European Union and 
Switzerland that paragraph 1.1 set the scope for the entire proposal. He considered Peru 's 
suggestion interesti ng but did not think it was necessary, as the sentence setting the scope was 
clearly limited to the five elements. The word "authorization " further constrained the scope later in 
the text, rather than broaden ing it, and certainly did not undo paragraph 1.1 . The current wording 
made sure that the disciplines only related to the situations where an authorization was required, 
namely where services suppliers were actually trying to get a permission to supply services. Hence 
the disciplines would not apply to e xtraneous regulations, and matters  like a fire clearance would 
fall outside the scope of the proposal. The proposed disciplines would only cover situations where 
Members were seeking authorization, so the use of the term was helpful insofar as it made the 
scope of the disciplines clear. The term did not broaden the scope of paragraph 1.1.  
1.70.   The representative of Chile considered the scope of application to be well defined and clearly 
limited in paragraph 1.1. As such, the use of term "authorization " should be  taken in the context of 
paragraph 1.1. He did not deem it necessary to include definitions  on the six terms used in 
paragraph 1.1 . However, if some delegations wished to have some form of language to develop 
greater comfort, the delegation of Chile was re ady to engage and discuss alternatives, such as 
perhaps footnotes, provided Members remained pragmatic. He stressed that agreeing on S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 16 - 
 
  definitions in past negotiations had proved rather difficult and had hindered consensus in the 
WPDR.  
1.71.   The Chairperson  invite d delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.72.   It was so agreed . 
1.2  Administration of Measures  
1.73.   The representative of Australia  outlined the changes the co -sponsors had made in the 
consolidated proposal in response to comments from Members at previous WPDR meetings and 
through bilateral and small group discussions . She also  responded to some of the specific 
questions that had been  raised in relation to administration of measures, including those recently 
circulated by India and the African Group. In consolidating the text, the proponents had sought to 
address specific questions that had been raised by Members. The issue that had ra ised the most 
questions was the proposal under the heading "single window ". The choice of language  for the 
heading  had created  some confusion a s to the proponents ' intentions for  the discipline . This 
provision was not about creating a "single window ", as i n the context of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement but rather about avoiding duplication with the submission of applications for a single 
licence or authorization. In the consolidated text the proponents had modified the heading in 
paragraph 2.1 to more acc urately reflect the objective of the discipline, as it applied to the 
submission of applications. The proponents had also moved the footnote into the body of the text, 
as suggested by a number of Members to help clarify that a service supplier might have t o submit 
multiple applications for different types of authorization.  
1.74.   In paragraphs 2.3, 2.4 and 2.7, the proponents had added language to clarify the scope of 
application of the disciplines, which applied in cases "where authorization was required for the 
supply of a service ", meaning only where Members had adopted or maintained measures referred 
to in GATS Article VI:4 and to help clarify that these measures did not in any way require a 
Member to adopt additional requirements for authorization for any serv ice. Some Members found 
this language necessary to clarify when the disciplines applied. She expressed hope that the 
consolidated text proposal had also helped clarify the scope of the disciplines on domestic 
regulation as it applied to all provisions, as well as the relationship between the various elements.  
On the meaning of "authorization ", the delegation of Australia understood "authorization " to mean 
any grant of permission to supply a service within the scope of GATS Article VI:4. This would 
include l icensing and qualification requirements and procedures and could also include technical 
standards where they operated as a requirement that must be fulfilled in order to provide a 
service. However, the coverage would not go beyond the five elements listed in GATS Article VI:4. 
As indicated previously, the delegation of Australia was not sure if Members needed to have a 
definition of "authorization ", but if Members were to include one, it would need to cover all five 
elements under GATS Article VI:4, and not  exclude coverage of technical standards. She also took 
note of India 's proposal to include additional provisions on recognition of qualification requirements 
and licensing requirements. Australia also had a strong interest in recognition and  had considere d 
paragraphs 27 -28 of the WPDR Chair text carefully in developing domestic regulation proposals but 
when the proponents had analyzed the obligations, they found that these paragraphs were not 
very clear. As for other elements of the WPDR Chair text, the pr oponents had relied on them as 
well, but sought to simplify the language.  
1.75.   The obligation to have adequate procedures for assessing whether an applicant met the 
requirements was found in paragraph 6.1  b., which required a Member to ensure that procedures 
were adequate for applicants to demonstrate whether they met the requirements, where such 
requirements existed. The proponents considered this language to be clearer and more agreeable 
to Members, than paragraph 27 of the Chair text. The obligation to ident ify a deficiency in the 
supporting evidence provided by an applicant and inform the applicant how to rectify the 
deficiency was already covered by paragraph 2.4  e. on incomplete applications. If Members saw 
value in this exercise, the proponents could add additional language, but the delegation of 
Australia had not found any further value add ed in the WPDR Chair text on recognition. She noted 
India's proposal to include language on recognition that would allow applicants, where appropriate, 
to fulfil requirements in their home country and similarly for examinations to encourage competent 
authorities to allow examinations to be conducted electronicall y from the home country of the 
applicant. As the proponents had understood from lengthy negotiations in WPDR, many Members 
had said that they would not be able to agree to this language without further flexibilities. For S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 17 - 
 
  some Members even best endeavour la nguage would be difficult to accept. So in line with the 
proponents ' undertaking to come forward with proposals that they had a good reason to believe 
would work for all Members, the proponents had not include d this language in the administration 
of measur es section. The proponents would be interested to hear from other Members if there was 
interest and flexibility to work on something along the lines proposed by India for examinations.  
1.76.   Good administrative practice was vital for an efficient services sector  and benefitted not only 
domestic and foreign services suppliers, but all sectors of the economy that relied on services for 
business. It was likewise vital to support trade in goods or any other economic activity. Good 
administrative practice and reducing  regulatory red tape was of core interest to services suppliers, 
whether they were operating domestically or overseas and whether they were providing services 
cross-border, through an office overseas, or through temporary stay overseas. The proponents 
had been asked if these disciplines could operate in mode 1, and the answer was yes. She 
provided an example of a Member who had undertaken mode 1 commitments in taxation services . 
This Member could also regulate the provision of that service by requiring the overseas provider to 
have a licence, or to submit tax returns, or to comply with certain technical standards, e.g. 
through membership of a recognized professional body, in which case disciplines on application 
processes, timeframes, fees, etc. were equally  relevant to mode 1 service suppliers. However, not 
all services were regulated and where there was no applicable requirement or procedure, or 
technical standards to follow, the domestic regulation disciplines did not apply.  
1.77.   In terms of Australia 's own exp erience with domestic regulation disciplines, the government 
had not encountered any difficulties in complying with the disciplines adopted in the FTA practice, 
which in many cases were more ambitious than what the proponents had put forward in the 
WPDR. The flexibilities included in the proposal dealt with sensitivities raised by Members 
throughout the WPDR negotiations, and the proponents considered that many Members were 
broadly comfortable with the level of ambition of the proposed disciplines. She stre ssed that if, 
however, there were specific areas where individual Members felt that additional flexibility, time or 
assistance would be needed to implement the disciplines, the delegation of Australia looked 
forward to hearing from them.  
1.78.   The representative  of India introduced two points  contained in India 's submi ssion. The first 
related to the  clarification of the term "authorization " which was used throughout the  entire 
section on administration of measures , and which  had not been defined in the text. The delegation 
of India had taken note of the explanations provided by the proponents in this regard, but was not 
satisfied. She underlined that Members were discussing a legal text proposing substantive 
obligations on a term that was not defined, which left r oom for legal ambiguity. She requested the 
proponents to provide further clarification on this issue. She noted the statement made by the 
representative of the European Union that further clarification by way of a definition or a footnote  
might be consider ed. She indicated that her delegation would be awaiting further responses from 
the proponents on this issue. The representative of India also introduced two paragraphs on 
"recognition ", sourced from paragraphs 27 and 28 of the 2009 Chair text. India viewed  these 
provisions as critical, but was open to their exact placement in the text. The language in 
paragraphs 6.1  b. and 2.4  e. of the consolidated text, did not substantially cover the main content 
of paragraphs 27 and 28 of 2009 Chair text. India saw a lo t of value in including these two 
paragraphs in the text.  
1.79.   The representative of Senegal  enquired as to the relationship between the first and the 
second sentence in paragraph 2.1. The first sentence mandated the establishment of a single 
window, so that Me mbers seeking authorization did not have to approach multiple authorities, 
whereas the second sentence contained reference to the possibility of multiple applications.  
1.80.   The representative of Bangladesh  posed a question in relation to paragraph 2.1 of the 
consolidated text concerning the "application for authorization ". Article VI:4 provided that 
qualification requirements and procedures , technical standards  and licensing requirements and 
procedures  must not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services. He also pointed out that 
the GATS Article VI:4 mandate did not mention authorization and reiterated his  question of what 
"authorization " and "application for authorization " meant.  
1.81.   The represen tative of China  provided some textual suggestions to the consolidated text. He 
proposed adding  the words  "and in accordance with the existing domestic laws and regulations " 
after "Each Member shall, to the extent practicable " in the section of "Submission of Application ", S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 18 - 
 
  in Article 2.1. In the section of "Application Timeframes ", specifically in Article 2.2(a), he proposed 
replacing "at any time " with "within legal time period ". In the section of "Electronic Application s 
and Acceptance of Copies ", specific ally in Article 2.3(a), he suggested adding "and in accordance 
with the existing domestic laws and regulations " after "taking into account their competing 
priorities and resource constraints ". In the section of "Processing of Applications ", specifically in  
Article 2.4(c), he proposed adding "and consistent with the legal format " after "in the case of an 
application considered complete ". In Article 2.4(d), the suggestion was to replace "provide without 
undue delay information concerning the status of the app lication " with "publish, in a timely manner 
and in accordance with the existing domestic laws and regulations, the processing status of the 
application ". In Article 2.4(f), he encouraged the proponents to replace "where applicable, the 
procedures for resub mission of an application " with "afford the applicant the possibility of deciding 
on its own to resubmit a new application where the reason for rejection has already been 
resolved ". In the section o n "Fees", specifically in Article 2.6, he suggested  to replace the word 
"reasonable " with "legal"; and  the words  "do not in themselves restrict the supply of the relevant 
service " with "commensurate with the administrative cost of processing an application ". 
1.82.   Regarding the Indian suggestions, the representa tive of China registered his delegation 's 
general support, specifically of the language based on paragraphs 27 and 28 of the 2009 DR Chair 
text and related to recognition. He took note of the point m ade by Australia that paragraph  6.1 b 
of the consolidated  text had the same effect, as paragraph 27 of the 2009 DR Chair text. The 
representative of China, however, felt that there was still another expression, contained in 
paragraph 27 and the Indian submission that would add value, namely "where the competent 
authority considers it relevant, it shall give due consideration to relevant professional experience 
of the applicant and membership in a relevant professional association in the territory of another 
Member. " He stressed that paragraph 28 of the 2009 DR Ch air text should also be considered.  
1.83.   The representative of Peru noted that his delegation  had been  among the first Members to 
express support for the provisions proposed under the section on "administration of measures ". 
However, he mentioned that the lang uage in paragraph 2.5 relating to the authorization entering 
into effect without undue delay could be improved, in view of the fact that not all Members might 
be able to comply with the discipline. Peru could not make a concrete suggestion, but was willing  
to engage in a dialogue with other Members to see how the language of the discipline could be 
improved.  
1.84.   The representative of Uruguay  supported the statement made by the representative of Peru 
and expressed its support of the section on administration of measures. She noted that her 
delegation also had some difficulty with paragraph 2.5 and noted  that it would be suitable to look 
for alternative wording. She suggested replacing "shall" with "should " and adding a phrase 
"according to internal regulations " in reference to competent authorities ensuring that once 
granted, the authorization entered into effect without undue delay.  
1.85.   The representative of Australia  was of the view  that Members needed to have further 
discussions about the meaning of "authorization " and its relationship to the scope of application of 
the disciplines. In her view, Members had raised concerns about the implications of the scope of 
the disciplines and not the actual meaning of "authorization ". The intention of all the co -sponsors 
was for these disciplines to only apply within the scope of GATS Article VI:4 and not to any 
broader authorization -related measures. In relation to the proponents ' intention in paragraph 2.1, 
they were trying to avoid obliging services suppliers to submit more  than one application for one 
authority for one type of authorization. It was not the intention of the proponents to enforce a 
single window for all services. The proponents were not trying to suggest that a services supplier 
could get all forms of license s and permits from one competent authority, as he or she might 
realistically need different licenses from different authorities. In an example where a service 
provider was trying to set up an office to provide legal and accounting services, the proponents 
were not suggesting that the supplier would only have to approach one competent authority that 
would cover both legal professional licensing and accounting professional licensing. Similarly, it 
was not the intention of the proponents to suggest that a busi ness provider could get all forms of 
licences from one competent authority where different authorities might have jurisdiction: e.g. in a 
case of a tourism operator who might need different licences for hospitality and to undertake 
building construction. W hile the proponents thought that it was every important to avoid requiring  
a services supplier to submit duplicate applications for the same licence, the second sentence was 
intended to provide clarity that where the authorization was within the jurisdicti on of multiple 
authorities, the service supplier might have to submit more than one application.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 19 - 
 
  1.86.   The representative of Senegal  requested  clarification of the meaning of "avoid requiring an 
applicant to approach ", as in the process of the preparation of the  application suppliers might have 
to approach different authorities that would be responsible for the submission of certain 
documents. He was of the view  that this differe d from the submission of the  supplier 's application  
itself and expressed doubts as to  the clarity of this provision in general.  
1.87.   The representative of the Republic of Moldova  provided a suggestion on the matter raised 
by Senegal on the relationship between the two sentences in paragraph 2.1.  She e nquired whether 
it was possible to reformula te the second sentence by using the word "sectoral " (applications) 
instead of "multiple " (applications) to make the provision clearer and to avoid misinterpretation.  
1.88.   The Chairperson  invited delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.89.   It was so agreed . 
1.3  Independence  
1.90.   The representative of the European Union  introduced  the section on "Independence " which 
was a new element that origin ated from paragraph d of the earlier "Development of Measures " 
proposal (JOB/SERV/250). He recalled that during the  June-July WPDR meetings , Members had 
raised questions about the placement of this provision under the header of development of 
measures as the reference to administration of decisions " would suggest  the placement under the 
header of administration of measures. The proponents had therefore taken the provision out of the 
development of measures section and turned it into a new, stand -alone section entitled 
"Independence ". In order to clarify the scope of this provision, the co -sponsors had copied the 
chapeau language of the development of measures part and limited it to five categories of 
measures. The obligation in the provision sought to ensure that competent authorities reached and 
administered their  decisions in an independent manner. Regarding India 's question on the need for 
such a provision, he stressed that it aimed at avoiding situations where some decisions were taken 
or implemented in the interest of certain service suppliers. Proponents had used paragraph 18 of 
the Chair text as inspiration for this provision.  
1.91.   The representative of Egypt  noted that the discipline addressed the independence of the 
authority in reaching and administering its decision on whether a service supplier met the relevan t 
requirements. Independence in this context was not synonymous with impartiality. An 
"independent " decision required that the decision -maker did not have links , formal or informal with 
individuals or corporations who had a stake in the case before it. Imp artiality required that the 
decision maker was not biased against certain aspects relevant to the decision to be made. 
Therefore, the proposal referred to both decision making on the measures and the administration 
of these measures, which expanded the sco pe of the GATS. He pointed to many developing 
countries ' asymmetry of regulation and specifics of domestic decision making that was totally 
different from that in the proponent countries, including the EU. He asked for more clarity on this 
provision and st ressed that the provision should not be an unnecessary burden for the 
government. Members needed to deal with the issue of impartiality and not independence.  
1.92.   The representative of Bangladesh  enquired whether his delegation should read the provision 
with or  without the bracketed portion, and noted that if the latter was the case, Members needed 
to think about how to develop the text.  
1.93.   The representative of Senegal  shared the concerns voiced by Egypt and explained that in 
some jurisdictions the structures in charge of licensing and authorizations were designated as 
agencies that enjoyed a certain amount of independence in relation to more traditional 
administrations , such as Minis tries or political authorities.  In those cases the notion of 
independence from the political authorities could become problematic due to certain administrative 
hierarchies, as opposed to independence from e.g. private actors, civil society o r lobbing groups. 
He maintained that it was not clear what was intended through the administration of the decision 
in an independent manner and requested further clarification on this point.  
1.94.   The representative of the European Union  noted that the EU suppor ted the language 
contained in the square brackets. There had been discussions on the scope of the development of 
measures part where the paragraph in question initially came from. Similar bracketed language S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 20 - 
 
  appeared in the chapeau to the development of mea sures section  and was therefore copied in the 
section on independence. The scope of the independence provision should indeed cover licensing 
requirements and procedures , qualification requirements and procedures  and technical standards , 
insofar as they wer e a condition for a supply of a service. He agreed that there was a difference 
between the notions of independence and impartiality. Article VI:1 of the GATS referred to 
impartiality, whereas the consolidated text dealt with independence. This element was already 
contained in the Chair text where competent authorities were meant to be "operationally 
independent ", which had resulted in a  very difficult  and inconclusive  discussion . For that reason 
the proponents had chosen to focus on the way process of reach ing and administering decisions 
rather than the structure of  the competent authority. He noted that, as stated by the 
representative of Senegal, sometimes it was not easy to evaluate whether there was full 
independence and gave the  example of a bar associa tion that was granting licences to lawyers, 
while having lawyers as its members at the same time. However, competent authorities should still 
reach their decisions  in an independent manner, even if on paper one could argue that structurally 
there was no fu ll independence. The proponents avoided this discussion by focusing on the way 
things were being done.  
1.95.   The Chairperson  invited delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.96.   It was so agreed . 
1.4  Transparency  
1.97.   The representative of Australia  introduced the Transparency section of  the consolidated 
text. She recalled that other Members had asked whether the proposed requirement to "provide " 
information in the chapeau of paragraph 4.1. was meant to impose a stricter obligation than GATS 
Article III obligation t o "publish or otherwise make publicly available ". Co-sponsors had no 
intention to create a stronger obligation than in GATS Art icle III, and had therefore replaced the 
term "provide " with the original GATS language. The second change the proponents had  made was 
to add a reference to qualifications in paragraph 4.1(f). This was part of a careful assessment that 
the co-sponsors had made in response to questions from India on whether the consolidated text 
sufficiently covered qualification requirements. The co -sponsors had recogni zed that in 
streamlining the WPDR Chair text, they had included licensing but not qualification requirements.  
1.98.   In relation to the e nquiry points, the co -sponsors  had a lot of discussions with Members 
about whether and how they deal t with enquiries from service s supplier s. Proponents had  heard 
that where Members ha d enquiry points for service s suppliers, these were often established 
through a relevant competent authority and/or an online portal , rather than through the GATS 
contact points. Therefore, the language from the WPDR Chair text that India ha d proposed did not 
seem to reflect the current practice, which is why the proponents had opted for broader language 
of "any appropriate mechanisms " for responding to enquiries. To the ex tent that this had create d a 
new obligation which went beyond the GATS requirement relating to Member -to-Member contact 
points, based on the previous years of discussions in the WPDR, the proponents  knew that some 
flexibility w ould be required  to recogni ze both the capacity constraints that might be faced by 
developing and least developed countries, and the resource constraints that might also be a factor, 
e.g. where a competent authority receive d an unexpected volume of enquiries and m ight not be 
able to r espond to all of them . The footnote was intended to provide additional comfort for 
Members in this regard.  
1.99.   In terms of the transparency text, the proponents  had received many questions from 
Members on paragraph 4.3 in relation to the operation of advance  publication, opportunity to 
comment and consideration of  comments received.  She noted that the  flexibility in the chapeau , 
i.e. "to the extent practicable and in a manner consistent with its legal system ", applie d to each of 
the subsequent subparagraphs a. -c. The proponents  were reflecting on whether th is provision 
could be restructured to make its intention  clearer. From previous WPDR discussions, and 
discussions with Members on the consolidated text, the proponents had understood  that there 
were some areas of transparency where it would be very difficult for Members to agree to any hard 
disciplines, such as prior publication of measure s beyond laws and regulations , or on publication of 
the purpose and rationale of laws and regulations.  However,  the proponents still saw value in 
including the best endeavour language in paragraphs 4.3a and 4.4 , which encourage d Members to 
adopt this good practice and which would provide further benefits for services suppliers by way of  
additional transparency.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.100.   Regarding  the necessity of and the mandate for transparency disciplines, she noted that 
transparency ha d been a feature of discussions on the development of disciplines under GATS 
Article VI :4 for as long as WPDR disciplines had been under discussion.  Transpa rency of licensing 
and qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards was essential for service s 
suppliers to be able to comply with these requirements and procedures. Lack of transparency 
create d uncertainty for service suppliers, and m ay increase costs and create delays in the 
provision of services, with impact not only on service s suppliers but also on consumers and 
businesses that rel ied on these services, creating a significant barrier to trade.  The proponents  had 
no intention of going beyond the scope of GATS Article VI :4. Like all other elements of the 
consolidated text, the transparency provisions in paragraph  4 of the consolidated text  were subject 
to the scope paragraph  1.1, which limit ed the application to licensing requirements  and 
procedures, qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards in sectors where 
Members ha d scheduled commitments and not where Members ha d scheduled any terms, 
limitations, conditions or qualifications.  
1.101.   The representative of India introduced the suggestions that her delegation  had put forward 
in its room document. In paragraph 4.1 India had suggested the introduction of a provision to 
ensure that laws and regulations were published in one of the official languages of the WTO to 
ensure the ease of doing business for services suppliers. In 4.1(f) India had noted Australia 's 
comment on the introduction of the term "qualifications " which made her wonder why the element 
had been missing in the past. Regarding paragraph 4.2, India suggest ed that enquiries might be 
addressed through the enquiry and contact points established under Articles III and IV of the 
GATS, or any other mechanisms, as appropriate. She also noted Australia 's comments that 
Members could be responding to such queries through  channels other than contact points or 
enquiry points. In her view, online portals could also be a type of a contact point established by 
Members. India had also suggested a change to footnote 7, and proposed limiting the resource 
constraints flexibility t o developing country Members. She clarified that the concept of resource 
constraints could not be applicable to developed countries, as the GATS disciplines had made 
contact points already mandatory for developed country Members. Hence, the GATS obligation  
could not be diluted through footnote 7. Regarding paragraph 4.3, India had sugge sted the 
deletion of 4.3(a)(ii), i.e. the encouragement to publish in advance also administrative rulings, as 
this obligation was not present in DR Chair text. It was difficu lt to envisage how administrative 
rulings in any jurisdiction could be pre -published for comment. Such a requirement would 
compromise the independent nature of quasi -judicial administrative forums. India had also 
suggested deletion of paragraph 4.3(c), whi ch had a "shall" obligation  to consider the comments 
received.  India considered this obligation onerous and enquired how a Member could demonstrate 
compliance with this obligation . It would be unduly burdensome for countries to show responses to 
all commen ts. Instead India had suggested an alternative sub -paragraph c., requiring  that 
competent authority "may consider comments as appropriate ". The alternative sub -para also  
include d language clarifying  that the submission of comments did not "oblige " the comp etent 
authority to accept them "in whole or in part ", or provide "any kind of response " to the comments 
submitted. India had also suggested the dele tion of paragraph 4.4, as the requirement to provide 
a rational e for regulation could be an additional admin istrative burden that question ed a 
competent authority 's sovereignty in deciding what was best in a given  national context.  
1.102.   The representative of Panama  noted that even though the wording of paragraph 4. 3 on the 
opportunity to provide comments and informa tion prior to the entry into force of laws and 
regulations included the wording "to the extent practicable ", not all Members would be able to 
meet this obligation. The obligation referred to all administrative levels involved in granting 
licenses, technica l standards and other types of permissions to supply a service that did not always 
publish their drafts decrees or resolutions, as they did not have them available, or faced financial 
difficulties. The domestic system of Panama only required the publicatio n of laws already approved 
in the Official Gazette and not of those that were in the process of preparation. Panama would like 
to see the special and differential treatment reflected  for this provision . 
1.103.   The representatives of the Republic of Korea , China , and Switzerland  noted that it would 
be difficult for their delegation s to accept India 's suggestion to publish domestic regulations in one 
of the official languages of the WTO.  
1.104.   The representative of Egypt  reiterated that some provisions of the transparen cy section 
would be hard to comply with for two main reasons, the first one being the administrative burden 
and the second  the fact that the  Egyptian legal system that did not provide for  the advance S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 22 - 
 
  publication of such provisions. He recognized that some paragraphs were phrased as best 
endeavour language, but it was still difficult to comply with the d isciplines. Regarding 
paragraph  4.1(g), he noted that the Egyptian system did not provide opportunities for public 
involvement, such as hearings or comments.  Secondly, regarding the opportunity to comment on 
the information before entry into force and consideration of comments in paragraphs 4.3 (b) and 
4.3(c) respectively, he noted that it would be hard for his delegation to comply with these 
provisions, as the  Egyptian legal system did not provide for an opportunity to publish regulations 
in advance or allow comments to these regulations before entry into force. With regards to India 's 
suggestion to publish the regulations in one of the official languages of th e WTO, it would also be 
hard for Egypt to abide by such an obligation.  
1.105.   The representative of New Zealand  recognized  the differences in  domestic system s of 
developing laws and regulations. The proponents therefore provided  a lot of flexibility. She 
emphasiz ed that the chapeau of paragraph 4.3 applied to all the subsequent subparagraphs. Also 
Footnote 8 provid ed flexibility. The language provided a lot of flexibility, such as requiring  
"reasonable " opportunity to comment. She acknowledged that the  specific wording in the 
paragraph 4.3 (c) on the consideration of comments had caused a lot of questions. The expression 
to "consider " had been deliberate and meant that the competent authority had to listen to 
comments but was not required to respond to  them, or reflect  them in the laws and regulations  
that were being developed. Regarding the concern raised by Egypt, whose domestic system did 
not currently allow certain processes, e.g. advanced publication, she noted that the consolidated 
text contained fl exibilities in terms of how the domestic system could actually meet the objectives. 
Also New Zealand did not publish in advance the text of regulations, but only a policy document 
that gave information about the types of regulations the government was inte nding to pass. Yet 
New Zealand felt very comfortable that their domestic situation was well accommodated by 
paragraph 4.3(a)(i) of the consolidated text. The text contained not only the flexibilities but also 
the guidance on what best practices were. New Z ealand was continuously seeking to improve  its 
own domestic regulatory practices through various working groups . 
1.106.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  supported the point made by the 
representative of Egypt and enquired if the expression "to consider " comments could be modified, 
as this was not acceptable to the governments of many  developing Members due to capacity 
constraints.  
1.107.   The representative of Peru suggested placing brackets around the words "publish or 
otherwise " in the phrase "Member s hall publish or otherwise make publicly available " in 
paragraph  4.1, including the footnote . Even though the bracketed language was derived from the 
GATS, it was not necessarily clear, since it provide d the possibilities of whether  to publish or  to 
make available to the public. He believe d that it would be better to opt for a discipline limited to 
"making the information publicly available ". This was not necessarily less ambitious than the 
GATS, in view of the fact that this agreement provide d both possibilities, and it was understood 
that a Member that publishe d information  also complie d with the requirement to make it publicly 
available. Adopting this language would help clarify the proposed discipline.  Peru opposed 
paragraph 4.2 in its current w ording, and needed to better understand the discipline, how it would 
be applied, as well as its relationship to the disciplines in paragraphs  4.1 and footnote 7. There 
should be linkages between the information that was requested and the information alread y 
published, so as to reduce th e burden on the enquiry points. The delegation of Peru appreciate d 
the approach proposed by India, suggesting special and differential treatment. He noted that 
Article III:4 of the GATS  contained flexibility for developing co untries . Regarding paragraph 4.3(c),  
he proposed inclusion of a footnote to suggest that "this provision d id not place any obligation on 
the final decision of a Member that adopt ed any measure within the scope of paragraph 1.1". He 
noted that some Members,  such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, had problems even considering the 
comments of the suppliers. India ha d proposed deleting the discipline because of the burden for 
national authorities to consider suppliers ' comments. The proponents had  recently suggested that 
demonstration of compliance with this discipline could be achieved by demonstrating that emails 
sent by service providers had been  read. The delegation of Peru  believe d that this type of 
implementation would be favourable, but prop osed to emphasize the independent nature of the 
national authorities when adopting their decision s. 
1.108.   The representative of  Norway  noted that the disciplines in question would bring more 
transparency and predictability to licensing and qualification measures  that govern ed services 
markets of WTO Members. The proposal w ould contribute to services markets around the world S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 23 - 
 
  being more accessible in practical terms and would thereby help invigorate markets to the benefit 
of both services  consumers  and service s suppliers. The disciplines were all about predictability and 
transparency as key factors in facilitating trade in services . For Norway the e disciplines constituted 
a domestic regulation priority , as they provide d comfort  to service s suppliers , in particular t o SMEs 
from all WTO Members, whether they operated in their  own national markets , or were aiming at 
services markets abroad. Transparency was a real concern, and she hoped that the  current  
discussions w ould lead Members  to a concrete result at MC11.  
1.109.   The re presentative of Kazakhstan , stressed that the consolidated text on DR overall 
provided for soft language , allowing flexibility for Members She highlight ed that Kazakhstan was a 
recent  WTO Member and a developing country . In its accession protocol and the W orking Party 
Report on accession s, Kazakhstan had undert aken comprehensive disciplines phrased as  hard 
language with regard to transparency . These disciplines mandated that all laws establishing or 
implementing  all licensing procedures and requirements would have to be published prior to their 
effective date. Additionally, all laws , regulation s, decrees , decisions and administrative rulings  of 
general application affecting trade in goods , services or intellectual  property rights would  have to  
be published prior to their adoption, and competent authorities would have to provide a reasonable 
period of time of no less than 30 days for interested Members to provide comment s before the 
relevant measure could be finaliz ed, or submitted to the competent body of Kazakhstan. She 
underlined that Kazakhstan as a developing country fully compl ied with its obligations and had 
created an administrative system  to insure compliance  with its obligations . 
1.110.   The representative of Pakistan expressed support for  the Indian suggestion to completely 
delete paragraph 4.4 , and sought clarification if the requirement in paragraph 4.4 to publish an 
explanation or the rationale of a law or regulation  would not be subject to the obligation  in 
paragraph 4.3 to consider comments received on that purpose or rational e, thereby creating an 
additional burden on competent authorities.  
1.111.   The representative of Nigeria  stated  that in M ay 2017 the government of Nigeria had 
issued an order on the promotion of t ransparency and efficiency of the business environment. 
Every Ministry, department and agency of the federal government was obliged to publish a 
complete list of all requirements and conditions relating to  products and services within their scope 
of responsibility, including permits, licences, tax -related processes etc. Regarding paragraph 4.3, 
he enquired whether footnote 7 was consistent with the goal of 4.3. He asked whether there was a 
conflict between the expressions "to the extent practicable " and "consistent with the legal system ". 
The meaning of "to the extent practicable " was not clear if the actions of a Member were 
inconsistent with the legal system. The domestic legal system should have primacy o ver all other 
obligations. Regarding paragraph 4.4 on explaining the purpose or rational e of the regulation, he 
enquired how a Member could rationalize the purpose of a regulation, especially if the legal system 
did not provide for such a rationalization. He noted that there was already a time period between 
publication of a  law and the date on which service suppliers must comply with th at law in the 
Nigerian legal system. Regarding the issue of comments, he noted that consideration of comments 
would depend  on the national policy objectives and urged Members to be cautious in formulating 
the extent to which authorities would be obliged to consider comments, especially those  that could 
undermine the intended objective of a law or regulation. In reality commen ts might be ignored, 
where  they did not contribute to  the objectives of the government. He requested an explanation of 
how comments would be treated in a manner that would be fair to both sides, particularly to the 
regulator or the government. He underline d that passing laws was a sovereign right of a Member 
and comments received could be politically sensitive which might make their consideration 
complicated. However, if comments could help improve the business climate, they should 
legitimately be taken int o account.  
1.112.   The representative of Ecuador  considered the proposed disciplines on transparency  to be 
quite complex and supported the point made by the delegation of Panama that these disciplines 
would create an additional burden on developing Members. He not ed that, like for the delegation 
of Egypt, it was not going to be practicable for Ecuador to comply with the expression "to the 
extent practicable " in paragraph 4.3 , as it was not consistent with Ecuador 's legal system. He 
considered it as a double burden to not only have to publish the rational e for the regulation, but 
also to make the regulation public before entry into force. He enquired whether the proposed 
transparency disciplines were covered by the mandate of GATS Article VI:4.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 24 - 
 
  1.113.   The representative of Colombia  considered the proposed transparency obligations to be 
positive for domestic services providers. Paragraph 4.3 served as guidance for appropriate 
processes to be adopted by Members. Colombia used the flexibility provided by the chapeau of 
paragraph 4.3 that referred to the consistency with a Member 's legal system, concerning  the time 
when a draft regulation should be published. An example would be the primary regulations  that 
were developed by the  legislature: once the legislative debate began, the drafts were  rendered 
public and as such the government was able to publish the draft regulations  officially. Under the 
Colombian legislation this kind of regulation contain ed an introduction providing the rational e for 
the regulatio n, namely indicating why the regulation was being prepared. This was useful for 
domestic businesses, as it ensured that suppliers knew the reason  behind the regulations. 
Paragraph 4.2 on enquiry  points did not establish specific ways of setting up a mechan ism to 
address queries , but left open the possibility for each Member to set up a mechanism it deemed 
most appropriate. In Colomb ia any national or  foreigner could submit an information request to 
any public official and the official was obliged to provide  a response within a certain period of time. 
Colombia considered this as the right approach and did not see the necessity of establishing 
further mechanisms. The government tried to raise awareness of existing mechanisms in line with 
domestic legislation.  
1.114.   The representative of Chile referred to the encouragement contained in paragraphs 4.3a .ii 
and 4.4. WTO Members had different level s of development and resource availability to shoulder 
the proposed obligations. In practice , some obligations, even if desira ble, might be difficult to 
implement by some Members. At the same time the proponents recognized that th e disciplines 
contained good regulatory practices and it was a positive step to include them in the text by way 
of encouragement. Regarding the content of paragraph 4.4, the obligation to explain the rational e 
and purpose of regulations was desirable. At the same time the proponents were aware that it 
might prove difficult for certain delegations to accept paragraph 4.4 as a hard obligation, and for 
that reason it was phrased as an encouragement instead.  
1.115.   The representative of Australia  was open to continuing work with all Members to improve 
drafting or otherwise clarify the obligations  in a way that was agreeable to all Members. Some 
Members we re seeking m ore ambition for example in relation to publication in one of the official 
language s of the WTO, but the proponents had also heard that this would not be acceptable to 
other Members.  Much of the discussion ha d been focused on the obligation to "consider " comments 
received. She reminded Members  that this  wording wa s not intended to impose any obligation to 
take on board comments or to respond to comments received. The proponents  had tried to 
balance ambition and do -ability in this area.  
1.116.   The representative of Nigeria  expressed the view  that Members deserved recognition of 
their good regulatory practices. Regarding subparagraphs 4.3(b) and 4.3(c), he urged proponents 
to accommodate Members ' concerns and find a workable balance between having disciplines and 
providing Members with flexibility. He reiterated his previous questions regarding what exactly a 
"reasonable " opportunity to comment was, as well as what it meant to "consider " comments. He 
agreed that good regulatory practices should be encouraged but considered that in many 
jurisdictions there was a limit to how much scrutiny regulatory authorities should be subjected to. 
He enquired how provisions containing best endeavour language would be supported by capacity 
building, namely how capacity building in the area of rationalizing laws could be provided . As a 
middle grounder, the delegation of Nigeria was trying to approach the discussion with a view to 
finding a compromise. Nigeria valued transparency but saw a limit to it. He added that the legal 
implicat ion of the expressions like "the extent practicable " was not clear and they could potentially 
be subject to interpretation in disputes. He urged the proponents to strike a balance and find 
workable solution s all Members could live with.  
1.117.   The representative of India repeated her initial point on paragraph 4.2, noting that enquiry 
points were an extremely useful mechanism through which Members could respond to queries by 
services suppliers. The GATS obligation on contact points in Article IV:2 made it mandator y upon 
developed countries to have a mechanism to respond to queries. T he current negotiation was 
about taking on additional disciplines on those five categories of measure s mandated by GATS 
Article VI:4. Judging from the footnote containing the resource c onstraints -related flexibility for all 
Members, it appeared that the GATS obligation was being diluted.  
1.118.   The Chairperson  invited  delegations to take note  of the statements made.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 25 - 
 
  1.119.   It was so agreed . 
1.5  Technical Standards  
1.120.   The representative of Australia  noted that co-sponsors had not introduced changes to this 
part of the consolidated text, as compared to the original proposal.  She observed  that most 
Members were broadly comfortable with including disciplines that focus ed on the process for 
developing te chnical standards and which d id not go to the substance of those standards . She 
expressed her delegation 's interest in the proposal from India to include an additional paragraph 
drawn from the WPDR Chair text encouraging the adoption of international stand ards. 
1.121.   The representative of New Zealand  considered that the way the technical standard 
provision was crafted was useful and that it was based on openness and transparency which 
should be the fundamental principles of any regulatory activity. It also respon ded to some of the 
concerns previously raised in terms of the level of ambition of the disciplines, as the discipline was 
framed in terms of encouragement and focus ed on process, not on the substance of the technical 
standards themselves. She was likewise positive about India 's idea regarding the inclusion of a 
reference to international standards. She noted that New Zealand was  a proponent of technical 
standards within the scope of the broader disciplines  and not just as a stand -alone provision . 
1.122.   The repres entative of Panama  thought that  the issue of  technical standards require d 
further clarification . She enquired what the concept of technical standards in services was and how 
it applie d; whether the proponent countries ha d such standards established , and if so, at what 
level and whether they c ould give Members  some specific examples.  She also enquired what 
criteria would be established or would have to be used to ascertain that a Member was  dealing 
with a technical standard in services  and w hat was understood by the term "open process ". She 
asked whether the establishment of standards was  a matter of self -regulation or whether there 
was a requirement to comply with an international standard ; she asked who issue d and approve d 
the standards, and whether a technical standard or the application thereof bec ame a TBT measure 
when it c ame to export s of services . She requested the proponents to provide some examples for 
Members  to better understand the proposal. This w ould also enable Members  to determine 
whether any form of special and differential treatment for developing countries and LDCs  would 
need to be included in this provisio n. 
1.123.   The representative of Australia  respon ded to some of the questions raised on technical 
standards. In Australia, technical s tandards in services were generally developed by a domestic  
standards organization , which was a non -government body called Standards Australia. It 
develop ed standards for all products and services . As Members had  heard at the informal 
information and exper ience exchange held on 12  March  2017, Standards Australia  did not 
distinguish between goods and services in the development of standards. Standards Australia 
applie d the same processes and procedures to the development of services -related standards , as 
they did to goods. In this respect Standards Australia in the development of standards applie d all 
of the best practices , as outlined i n the TBT Agreement , including the requirement to use open and 
transparent processes . Both Standards Australia and the International Organization for 
Standardization  (ISO), as well as other standard -setting  bodies  had noted that the development of 
services  standards was a relatively new  but a rapidly evolving area , where less experience existed 
than in the field of goods s tandards . It was more difficult to determine compliance with services 
standards , because compliance could only be assessed after the services had been provided. There 
were some very interesting discussions going on in the ISO about whether the same te sts that 
were used  for testing compliance with goods standards c ould also be adopted in the case of 
services. The process es used in the development of services  standards , as Members had  heard 
from standard organizations , were  the same.  Standards Australia  would  hence have no problems 
complying with the obligation to use open and transparent processes in the development of 
services standards . 
1.124.   The representative of Bangladesh  enquired whether by using the word "encourage ", the 
co-sponsors intended to make the prop osed standards voluntary or not , or referred to the 
"encouragement ", as standards were meant to be developed by non -governmental bodies. 
Secondly , he asked  about the meaning of the term "open and transparent process es". He enquired 
how Members could  relate  the discussion in the WPDR  with the SPS and TBT standard s 
discussions . He also asked why the proponents talked about technical standards and not about 
qualification requirement s. S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 26 - 
 
  1.125.   The representative of Colombia  informed the Working Party about Colombia 's technical 
standards experience in services. The body responsible for developing and certifying standards in 
Colombia was the International Colombian Institute for Standardization  (ICONTEC ) and, as in 
other countries , it did not differentiate between standar ds for goods and services. ICONTEC  
focused on sectors that were deemed to be important. Standards were generated for food, 
agricultural  goods , construction, education, industry, chemicals, public services, health, medicine, 
environment , tourism and leisure , etc. Regarding  the way in which the standards were developed , 
he explained that  many of them were derive d from pre -existing ISO standards applied 
internationally that were adapted  to national circumstances. As the standards were not being 
developed by th e government itself, it was important to have clarity regarding the obligations 
Member governments would undertake in respect of those standards. T he objective of the open 
and transparent development process for standards  was to involve different stakehold ers that 
might be government s, speciali zed agencies , or institutions and businesses. Through such broad 
participation, the interests and concerns of different stakeholders c ould be taken into account . This 
was why in terms of standard setting  processes , Colombia had  sought to give pri ority to those 
open approaches.  
1.126.   The representative of Chile share d the experience of Chile in the area of the development 
of technical standards for services. The body in charge of technical standards in Chile was the 
Nationa l Institute for Standardization. It was an institution that was involved in the development of 
technical standards for services , as well as in  various other areas. The Institute  generally gather ed 
international standards and to the extent necessary adapt ed them to the national realit ies. Chile 
was among 25 other countries who had founded the ISO in 1947 . The  Institute was open to all 
interested parties and bodies, public and private , and offered the stakeholders  a 60 day 
consultation  period. The procedure f or the development of standards was an open and transparent 
process that met  the requirements  under para graph  5 of the consolidated text . 
1.127.   The representative of India posed a  question on the  applicability of the proposed 
disciplines to technical standards.  Out of the five  mandated elements in GATS VI:4  technical 
standards was the only one that was laid out in a separate dedicated paragraph.  She enquired as 
to whether all other  disciplines of the consolidated text, inter alia  on administration of measures , 
transparency, development of measures, independence , also appl ied to technical standards  or 
whether technical standards were only covered by a  single paragraph proposed by the co -sponsors 
and an additional para graph  proposed by India . As technical standards  were developed by non -
governmental bodies, most Members w anted to address them with lighter  and fewer disciplines . 
She asked the proponents to clarify whether Members were looking at  stronger disciplines for 
technical standards , since all the obligations in the consolidated text, in addition to the two specific  
paragraphs , appeared to apply  to technical standards . 
1.128.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that his delegation supported the Chair text, as 
well as the consolidated text currently on the table. H e also supported India 's suggestions derived 
from the Chair text. Switzerland would like to see technical standards in any domestic regulation  
outcome. The Chair  text had  contained  a very short definition of technical standards that was the 
only one that h ad not been agreed by Members ad referendum. He stated that any outcome 
should have a specific section for technical standards which was the case in the consolidated text. 
He noted that  some disciplines applied to all five categories of measures, while others had a more 
limited application to only some of the categories. Some provisions did not apply to technical 
standards. In his view, technical standards as defined in the GATS, were in many instances quite 
different from licensing and qualification req uirements, which h  had to be fulfilled by a potential 
supplier at one precise point in time so as to obtain a licence to supply a service, whereas 
technical standards had to be complied with a continuous basis.  
1.129.   The representative of Australia  share d some further information about Standards Australia . 
In the development of standards, Standards Australia d id not distinguish between goods and 
services. As confirmed by  the International Standards Organization in March, services standards 
were not treated any d ifferently from product -based standards in terms of their development. The 
standards development process was based on the same core principles as that of all WTO 
agreements:  openness, transparency, impartiality, effectiveness , coherence and development – 
irrespective of the type of standard under development. She considered that any  Member that 
complie d with the WTO TBT Agreement should have no trouble meeting the best endeavour 
commitment to open and transparen t processes proposed in the c onsolidated text.  The one area 
where there was a difference in services standards as opposed to goods standards, wa s in relation S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 27 - 
 
  to compliance, because unlike a product that c ould be tested at the border, the only way to test 
compliance in relation to services standards was through the provision of a service. Given that 
services was a relatively new and rapidly emerging area of standards development , it ma de sense 
that there were many questions about services standardi zation and less comfort in negotiating the 
kind of compr ehensive disciplines found in the TBT  in relation to services .  
1.130.   In response to India 's question about the structure of the consolidated text and the scope 
of coverage of technical standards across the various disciplines, she explained that the 
proponents had carefully considered whether they should follow the same formula as the previous 
Chair texts or opt for a new approach. When consider ing the Chair text provisions on licensing and 
qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards , the proponents had  found that 
there  was a great deal of overlap between disciplines , as well as  some degree of confusion in 
terms of coverage of specific practices of Members. The structure of the Chair texts did not seem 
to match how services were regulated i n many Members. It did  not make sense to have separate 
disciplines for each element , given the fluidity between what measures could be consider ed as 
licensing and qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards . Therefore,  the 
proponents had opted to group disciplines by their objective in relation to administration, 
development and transparency. The co -sponsors had also  recogni zed that technical standards  
were a bit different to licensing requirements and procedures  and qualification requ irements and 
procedures . Standards were generally developed by non -government bodies, and while they c ould 
be mandatory , the majority of services standards in most Members were voluntary . As services 
standards bec ame more prolific and were increasingly bei ng used as an alternative form of 
regulation, including in place of licensing and qualification requirements, it would be amiss of the 
co-sponsors  not to discipline these measures where they operate d as a requirement for the supply 
of a service , as propose d in paragraphs 3.1 and 6.1, and incorporated through the use of the term 
'authori zation'.  
1.131.   The disciplines on administration of measures and development of measures were intended 
to apply to technical standards only where they operate d as a requirement for the supply of a 
service. In relation to transparency disciplines , where the scope applie d only to laws and 
regulations, technical standards would not be covered unless they ha d been incorporated into a 
Member 's legislation.  The disciplines therefore d id not cover the bulk of voluntary technical 
standards for services. Therefore the proponents saw  a need for standalone disciplines that appl ied 
to all technical standards in services, as reflected in GATS Article VI. From discussions with 
national standards bodies and the ISO, the proponents had  found the common denominator,  i.e. 
the minimum  level of obligation  that Members  should all be able to agree  to and that was  that the 
process for developing standards should be open and transparent.  
1.132.   The r epresentative of Senegal  posed a question in relation to India 's enquiry and the 
response given by Australia regarding the fact that when a standard was compulsory, it fell under 
the scope of application of the consolidated text in paragraph 1.1. He enquir ed whether the 
disciplines would also apply to licensing requirements  and qualification requirements  that included 
compliance with mandatory technical standards.  
1.133.   The representative of Australia  confirmed that this was one example of how a technical 
standar d in services could be converted into a measure. Different Members had different methods, 
but one way some  voluntary standards c ould become mandatory requirements was through their 
incorporation in a Member 's legislation . To the extent that a standard was adopted into laws and 
regulations and became a measure by a Member, all of the disciplines in domestic regulation that 
applied to laws and regulations would apply to the standards in question. I n Australia 's experience, 
only a fraction of services standard s were adopted into law , most standards  remained voluntary . 
1.134.   The Chairperson  invited  delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.135.   It was so agreed . 
1.6  Development of Measures  
1.136.   The representative of the European Union  noted that  the section on development of 
measures  contained three paragraphs . He noted that paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 would be discussed 
separately and introduced by other Members later on the discussion due to their special nature. S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Paragraph 6.1 consisted of 3 subpara graphs and was the result of merging the common elements 
of two earlier proposals on development of measures (namely JOB/SERV/250 and JOB/SERV/252). 
The chapeau language was adapted to make it clear that the scope of the provision covered 
measures relating  to licensing and qualification requirements and procedures and technical 
standards as a condition for the supply of a service. The brackets in subparagraph  (c) were a 
result of merging the two earlier proposals. Regarding the question contained in the sub mission by 
the African Group, he confirmed that the provisions proposed were carefully selected by the co -
sponsors as being reasonable and having an achievable level of ambition. The proponents had 
looked into the records of past WPDR discussions and taken  note of Members ' specific sensitivities 
in order to come up with the current text that was, in the proponents ' view, both realistic and 
balanced. The main objective of the proponents was to strike the right balance between ambition 
and feasibility and the  representative of the EU considered that the consolidated text achieved that 
objective. In response to another question posed by the African Group on whether the right to 
regulate overrode the substantive disciplines being proposed, he noted that the righ t to regulate 
was a horizontal concept, both in relation to market access and domestic regulation. Specific 
commitments or regulatory disciplines d id not take away any Member 's policy space to define, for 
example, whether a country decide d to have qualific ation requirements or not, or how many 
licensing requirements it want ed to introduce, etc. The recognition of the right to regulate, 
however, was not an exception to the proposed DR disciplines. He recalled that many carve -outs 
and exceptions already appl ied: f irst, the general and security  exceptions of GATS XIV 
and XIV bis; secondly, the flexibilities built into the various text provisions t hrough the insertion of 
qualifiers such as "to the extent practicable ", "to the extent possible ", "endeavour ", "taking into 
account their competing priorities and resource constraints ", etc.;  and t hirdly, the disciplines only 
applied where a Member had specific commitments.  
1.137.   In response to the question by the African Group on whether the state retain ed discretion 
in developing measures to achieve a particular set of domestic objectives, which were not trade -
related but considered discriminatory by the proposed DR disciplines , the representative of the EU  
recalled that the proposed disciplines would not prevent a state from achiev ing a particular set of 
domestic objectives, such as environmental or labour policy, as long as when it c ame to 
qualification/licensing requirements and procedures, the state  complie d with the broad objectives 
of, inter alia  objectivity and transparency. However, if a state wishe d to introduce a discriminatory 
requirement, this was rather a question of national treatment or market access , depending on the 
nature of the requirement . It was fundamental to repeat that domestic regula tion disciplines 
became irrelevant in the absence of specific commitments.  If a Member wanted to implement a 
policy that was discriminatory, either it ha d scheduled the corresponding limitation in its schedule 
or it ha d not taken commitment in the given se ctor. In both cases, the DR disciplines would not 
apply, hence they would not prevent or hinder the particular policy.  
1.138.   Regarding another question by the African Group on why the proponents felt that their 
domestic models of so -called "good regulatory pract ice" should be extended to all WTO Members`, 
some of which ha d different levels of development and more wide -ranging domestic development 
objectives and priorities , he clarified that the p roponents were not aiming at imposing a model or 
certain practices o n all WTO members. As far as the EU was concerned, its model was compatible 
with the propos ed disciplines  but it was much deeper and wider than what was stipulated by the 
proposal. The proponents wanted to believe that objectivity, transparency or impartiality were 
shared goals of all WTO Members regardless of their level of development.  
1.139.   Concerning the question by the African Group on how the concepts of "objective and 
transparent criteria ", "impartial ", "reasonable ", "do not in themselves unduly prevent fulfilment of 
requirements " should be defined , he underlined that t he term "objective and transparent criteria " 
emanate d from Article VI:4 of the GATS. The added value of requesting that the criteria on which 
measures ha d to be based were "objective and transparent ", was that this would  help Members to  
protect services suppliers , both local and foreign , from arbitrary decisions. The EU had been 
working for a very long time under the requirement that domes tic authorization processes should 
be based on "objective and transparent " criteria and found those guidelines particularly useful in 
the context of the EU 's regional integration . The EU legislation contain ed more requirements than 
objectivity and transpar ency, but not all aspects of the EU  system were fit for a multilateral  
context.  The EU 's Services Directive prescribe d that authori zation schemes shall be based on 
criteria which preclude d the competent authorities from exercising their power of assessment in an 
arbitrary manner  and to this end, this legislation require d that such authorization schemes were 
based on objective and transparent criteria.  In this context, objective criteria sho uld not leave a S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 29 - 
 
  margin of appreciation to the competent authority in a way that would allow for arbitrary 
decisions. This was necessary to ensure that all operators were treated fairly and impartially, and 
applications were assessed on their own merits. In  this context,  he recall ed that the domestic 
regulation disciplines would de facto equally apply to foreign and local service suppliers. Therefore, 
such rules were to the benefit of the domestic services market as well. The word "impartial " 
ensure d that al l applications were treated equally and fairly, on their own merits.  To clarify what 
was mean t by "unduly preventing fulfilment of requirements " he recall ed an example from the last 
meeting. If an applicant was required to undergo an impact assessment, thi s would in principle not 
be incompatible with the DR disciplines. If , however , the conduct of such an impact assessment 
took several months and the  procedure impose d a deadline for application of e.g. one week , it 
would be impossible for a service supplier s to meet the deadline for application, in other words the 
procedure would in itself prevent the fulfilment of the requirement to produce an impact 
assessment.  
1.140.   In reply to India 's question on the rationale and wording of paragraph 6.1 (a) and their 
concern regarding footnote 10, he clarified  that the footnote provide d examples of objective and 
transparent criteria in a non -limitative manner. It rather confirm ed that Members were free to 
choose those criteria as long as they were objective and transparent.  It should be noted that also 
in GATS VI :4(a) a similar approach was followed: competence and the ability to supply a service 
were mentioned as a "such as " example of objective and transparent criteria.  The list in the 
footnote reflect ed the discussion s to date among co -sponsors.  
1.141.   The representative of Switzerland  stated that  disciplines on development of measures  were 
especially important to his delegation . He noted that t he GATS DR mandate covered requirements 
and procedures. As evid ent from the time of the C hair text, it was more difficult  to find consensual 
disciplines for requirements  than procedures . The provision on development of measures was 
important for the fulfilment of the mandate , as it covered also requirements . In the context of 
licensing and qua lification requirements and procedures and technical standards , objectivity and 
transparent criteria behind those measures were an important factor. Switzerland could also 
accept the bracketed text in the chapeau. He considered impartiality as a fundamenta l value. The 
word "impartial " already existed in GATS Article VI  and was already known by Members. He hoped 
that Members could confirm their agreement to the consolidated text that contained more or less 
the same terms as the Chair text. The provision in q uestion also repeated the wording of GATS 
Article VI:4 to a large enough extent to sound familiar to Members: paragraph (a) resembled 
almost word by word the wording of Article VI:4. In Switzerland 's view, the higher the ambition of 
this text was, the bett er. He advised Members to be careful with how many items they added in 
footnote 9 if they were really serious about the idea of impartiality.  
1.142.   The representative of Bangladesh  enquired whether Members should read the proposal 
with or without the square brac kets. Secondly, he asked what the difference was between GATS 
Articles VI:4 and VI:5. He requested proponents to provide a practical example of why on top of 
GATS Article VI:4 and VI:5 Members also needed the development of measures disciplines 
proposed in  the consolidated text.  
1.143.   The representative of Panama  requested the proponents to go into more detail as to what 
they were seeking to regulate, namely what their intention was in specific terms and who would be 
in charge of the oversight of this provision.  
1.144.   The representative of Peru specif ied that his delegation was  opposed to  the use of the 
terms "are reasonable " in subparagraph 6.1(c), as the term "reasonable ", whil st used in other 
disciplines  of the consolidated text  and in the GATS, was ambiguous in and of itself . He believed 
Members could  find more precise terms, or delete  the expression altogether  in case Members could 
not agree on  alternative language.  
1.145.   The representative of India highlighted the GATS  mandate only referred to  competence 
and the ability to supply the service as illustrative criteria  for disciplines on requirements . The 
consolidated text introduced other criteria such as  potential health or environmental impacts of an 
authorization decision , and suggested to give competent authorities disc retion to asse ss the weight 
to be given to such criteria. In her view, this  language  diluted the importance of competence and 
ability to supply the service as the most important criteria. Environmental or health -related issues 
were covered by the GATS via the General Exceptions (Artic le XIV). Regarding 
subparagraph  6.1(b) on procedures being impartial, she noted that in the section on S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 30 - 
 
  "Independence " the disciplines already demanded competent authorities to reach and administer 
decisions in an independent ma nner. She considered that in subparagraph 6.1(b) that referred to 
procedures being adequate, the necessity test requirement was effectively replaced with an 
adequacy test. She enquired what "adequate " procedures for applicants to demonstrate that they 
met the requirements were in practice. Regarding subparagraph 6.1(c), she enquired how the 
brackets worked and asked the proponents to clarify the proposed obligation. She also enquired  as 
to the relationship between the procedures being reasonable and not in themselves unduly 
preventing the fulfilment of requirements in subparagraph 6.1(c) and the proposal for an adequacy 
test in subparagraph  6.1(b).  
1.146.   The representative of New Zealand  stated that that competence and ability to supply 
definitely had a central ro le, but there were other concepts important to a lot of Members  which 
had been reflected in footnote 9 . "Impartial " procedures were those procedures that were not 
designed to favour any particular applicant, domestic or foreign, and ensured fairness and a level 
playing field for the applicants. In her opinion, the procedures also needed to be adequate for 
applicants to demonstrate the fulfilment of requirements. She saw this discipline as separate from 
the necessity test. The objective Members were trying t o achieve when they regulated was to test 
whether applicants could meet certain requirements. Hence, there should be procedures that 
would allow suppliers to demonstrate that they met those requirements. She saw 
subparagraphs  6.1(b) and 6.1(c) as compl ementary, meaning the procedures shouldn 't be circular, 
or illogical, or impossible in a way that would prevent applicants from showing that they could 
meet requirements. Regarding the question asked by Peru on bracketed language, she noted that 
in the orig inal proposal on "Development of Measures " that New Zealand had co -sponsored  
(JOB/SERV/252) , the language was different and referred to procedures not unduly impairing the 
fulfilment  of requirements. However, in the course of the consolidation of the prese nt text the 
proponents had agreed to modify the wording, still keeping part of the language in brackets, so 
Members could continue further discussing the best language option.  
1.147.   The representative of the European Union  stated that the proponents were trying to fulfil 
the mandate of GATS Article VI:4 by developing disciplines on domestic regulation. Once there was 
an outcome of these negotiations, Articles VI:4 and VI:5 would effectively disappear. Regarding 
the point made by India on the enlarged list of the criteria in footnote 9, he noted that, as 
mentioned by the representative of New Zealand, environmental and health impacts of 
authorization decisions had emerged as important issues in stakeholder consultations and for that 
reason the proponents wanted to give them  a prominent place in the footnote. There were also 
other examples of valid and important criteria that had not been included in the illustrative list in 
the footnote. As for the brackets in subparagraph 6.1(c) the delegation of the European Union  
prefer red to keep the expression "do not in themselves unduly prevent " and drop the reference to 
"reasonable " (procedures).  
1.148.   The Chairperson  invited  delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.149.   It was so agreed . 
1.7  Gender Equality  
1.150.   The representative of Canada explained that no substantive changes  had been made  to the 
proposal on gender equality since the last meeting of the WPDR.  The proposal as reflected in 
JOB/SERV/258/Rev.5 was substantively identical to the version contained in the consolidated text 
in JOB/SERV/268/Rev.1.  The only difference was the list of co -sponsors which now also included 
Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Pakistan and Panama.  Additionally, 
Kazakhstan ha d been added to the list of co -sponsors within the cons olidated text.  In response to 
the question on how gender issues would be taken up in DR disciplines and trade agreements , he 
responded that the delegation of Canada would be happy to engage with the Africa n Group to get 
clarity on this question. The propos al sought  to ensure that licensing and qualification measures 
did not discriminate on the basis of gender. Regarding the economic rationale for this provision , he 
recall ed Canada 's response to this question in the June meeting of the WPDR. Legal gender 
equality c ould drive labour productivity and GDP growth. In this regard, there was untapped 
potential for inclusive growth in many WTO Members.   S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 31 - 
 
  1.151.   In response to the question whether gender fell under the remit of trade policy , he 
responded that l icensing and q ualification measures that discriminate d against half of the world 's 
population were clearly trade barriers, which were appropriately dealt with by Members ' trade 
policy. Trade policy was meant to create a legal framework that aim ed to liberalize trade and  limit 
trade -distorting measures. Canada was working to ensure that everyone benefit ted from trade 
liberalization, and addressing gender discrimination in DR disciplines was one opportunity to do 
that. In replying to the query on whether the proposed  principles and approaches could be 
extended to other poor, disadvantaged or marginali zed groups or regions in Members , he 
answered that p romoting inclusive and sustainable growth through the economic empowerment of 
women was a priority for Canada. For this reas on, the proposal ha d focused on gender 
discrimination. However, Canada would be open to covering a broader range of discriminatory 
measures. The proposal aim ed to address a gap in GATS rules , by addressing measures  which 
were inherently discriminatory. GATS Article VI:1 provide d that measures should be administered 
in a reasonable, objective and impartial manner. Addressing discrimination or arbitrariness in 
domestic regulation was a suitable endeavour under the GATS. Howeve r, the provision d id not deal 
with measures that were inherently discriminatory. This was also true of the proposed 
paragraph  6.1(a), which only stipulated that measures should be based on objective and 
transparent criteria. It d id not address discriminato ry measures, which c ould be based on objective 
criteria, including the gender of the service provider.  Regarding the question on whether the WTO  
was competent to resolve any gender related issues , he responded positively and noted that the 
proposal only ad dresse d discriminatory licensing and qualification measures within the scope of 
Article VI:4. It c ould be reasonably expected that a panel w ould be able to determine if a licensing 
or qualification measure discriminate d on the basis of gender.  
1.152.   Regarding t he scope of the proposal, he noted  India's point that the scope of 
paragraph  6.2 differ ed from that of paragraphs 6.1 and 6.3. The proponents ' intention was 
ultimately for the provision to have the same scope as all other  provisions . There was an ongoing 
discussion about how to frame that scope, and th e provision w ould be updated once that 
discussion was resolved.  Regarding Nigeria 's question on the  footnote , he explained that the 
footnote allow ed policy space for two types of situations, namely where it wo uld be reasonable to 
have discriminatory measures; and  where a Member maintain ed an affirmative action type policy 
to advance de facto gender equality.  The language of the footnote was based on domestic 
Canadian legislation and the proponents were  reflecting on new language which addresse d these 
concepts using terms more commonly used in international law.  
1.153.   The representative of Nigeria  gave great importance to the issues of gender and gender 
discrimination. He r ecommend ed that  in going forward Memb ers should focus on  language that 
was more of a best endeavour  nature , rather than obligatory  language , however, confirmed that 
his delegation would support a "shall" type obligation if Members so agreed . He noted that the 
subject in question was very sensitive and enquired if there was no other way to solve th e 
problem . 
1.154.   The representative of Senegal  endorsed the point made by the representative of Nigeria 
and supported the vital role of gender equality. Senegal had gender -related policies and strategies 
at the national level . He enquired  why proponents  focused solely on gender discrimination , and 
were not looking at rac ial, religious or other types of discrimination as well.  
1.155.   The representative of the Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia  reiterate d her delegation 's previ ous 
position that th e WTO was  not an appropriate forum to discuss gender , which was discussed at the 
United Nations.  
1.156.   The representative of Egypt  noted that it would be difficult  for his delegation  to go along 
with the inclusion of gender in WTO  discussions . The WTO agreements d id not currently cover the 
issue of gender equality. It was unclear how the issue of gender equality was relevant to trade 
liberalization purpose of the WTO , as stated in the third recital of the preamble and Article XIX of 
the GATS.  Moreover, gender equality was a general concept that ha d several ramifications.  He 
mentioned the "Trade and Gender " chapter of the Canada -Chile FTA  and noted that m ost of the 
provisions in that chapter were couched in hortatory language, using words such a s 
"acknowledge ", "recall ", "reaffirm ". He underlined that the provision in the Canada -Chile FTA was 
not subject to WTO dispute settlement.  He considered that Members  needed to further understand 
the idea behind the inclusion of this provision.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 32 - 
 
  1.157.   The represen tative of Australia  fully support ed the principle of non -discrimination on the 
basis of gender  but stated that Australia could not s upport a partial obligation to  gender equality. 
The proposal on gender equality as currently drafted only cover ed four of th e five elements under 
GATS Article VI :4, i.e. licensing requirements and procedures, qualification requirements and 
procedures , but not technical standards.  If Members we re going to include an obligation on gender 
equality, it should be very clear that the  obligation not to discriminate on the basis of gender 
applie d in relation to all measures under GATS Article VI :4. The delegation of Australia had 
provided some specific suggestions in relation to the footnote, which might clarify the meaning of 
"bona fide circumstances of discrimination ". 
1.158.   The representative of Peru express ed support for the objective pursued by the Canadian 
delegation with this discipline. He believe d that no one should be prevent ed or limited from  
harnessing trade liberalization. He saw value in Senegal 's suggestion and was interested that the 
discipline cover ed also other categories of population that ha d been victims of discrimination. The 
delegation of Peru continue d to consult with domestic  authorities to determine the extent to wh ich 
this type of discipline c ould be included in a trade agreement. He asked the Canadian delegation 
and the co-sponsors why the present wording use d the terms "against individuals ". In other words, 
he enquired why the discipline could not cover measures a ffecting other types of service providers , 
e.g. within a company where there m ight be a greater proportion of people of one gender but a 
discriminatory measure was affecting the  company  and not the  individuals.  
1.159.   The representative of  Norway  noted that her d elegation was a strong advocate of gender 
equality. She only saw the positive i mpact  of introducing disciplines on domestic regulation  that 
would achieve the objective of non -discrimination on the basis of gender. The scope and purpose 
of the provision ma de sure that no discrimination against individuals on the basis of gender  would 
be part of licensing or qualification requirements or procedures. She welcome d the proposal as it 
set a standard of equal treatment that w ould help invigorat e the role  of female service s suppliers 
in the economy. She consider ed gender equality discipline s to be a useful addition to the WTO rule 
book that ma de a lot of sense at many levels. In her view,  the provision w ould complement 
relevant policy development that was on-going domestically, internationally and in  international 
organizations . She was positively predisposed to the idea  of including other d isadvantaged  groups  
in the scope of the proposal.  
1.160.   The representative of  India expressed support for gender equality i n all sense s of the 
word. However, she noted  that gender discrimination was not the only type of discrimination . As 
there could be several other forms of discrimination , she enquired if Members wanted to create an 
equal world through  domestic regulations  disciplines . She asked the representative of Canada to 
come up with a specific example of discrimination on the basis of gender in licensing or 
qualification requirements, as such a n example would help Members  appreciation of the issue. She 
cautioned agains t going too far with debating this kind of issues and urged proponents  to focus on 
what was relevant to domestic regulation.  
1.161.   The representative of Switzerland  underlined that Members were working on a set of 
disciplines that were treaty -level legal obliga tions. He enquired how the provision  on gender 
equality  could be enforced  through dispute settlement, namely whether a Member could potentially 
launch a complaint on the basis that its suppliers had been discriminated against on the basis of 
gender.  He ask ed what type of argument  could be made by the complainant , what kind of criteria  
could be used to determine compliance with the obligation and how one could  define a prejudice in 
this kind of situation.  He asked for clarification from the co -sponsors before Switzerland could have 
a discussion domestically. Like other Members, he expressed his delegation 's support of gender 
equality but noted that , whether one supported the issue or not was beyond the point. He believed 
that the purpose of WPDR negotiat ions was to arrive at  legal obligations which were actionable and 
workable.  
1.162.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  recognize d the impact of  gender equalit y on trade 
policy outcomes and economic growth. She felt that  taking into account the gender perspective  in 
trade polic y was  essential to pursue inclusive and sustainable development and to achiev e fair 
trade.  
1.163.   The representative of Uruguay , as a co-sponsor of the proposal , supported the  statement 
made by the representative of Canada. Gender discrimination was clearly a trade barrier . Uruguay  
gave a great deal of importance to policies on gender equality. The proposal aim ed to cover a gap S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 33 - 
 
  in the work  of the WTO  and the delegation of Uruguay was  open to the inclusion of other 
disadvantaged groups  in the discuss ions. 
1.164.   The representative of Canada  noted that some Members , beginning with Senegal , had 
reiterated their interest in addressing a wider set of discriminatory measures . He noted that that 
was something that would definitely be of interest to his delegation.  In response to India's 
question  if the proponents  wanted to try and make the world a better place through trade policy , 
he confirmed  that that was exactly what Canada want ed to achieve with  its trade policy , including 
by eliminating gender discrimination. The delegation of Canada wanted to ensure that as many 
people as possible could benefit from trade policy and trade liberalization . Regarding the scope of 
the proposal, he reminded Members that they were dealing with licensi ng and qualification 
requirements and procedures only. T he "Trade and Gender " chapter in Canada 's FTA with Chile 
was a proud step forward in integrating gender issues into trade policy. It was  not subject to 
dispute settlement , as it represented a differen t type of endeavour . The Chapter set out 
institutional mechanisms for collaboration between Canada and Chile to share information on the 
promotion of female  economic empowerment , on how to do gender -based analysis of trade policy, 
and truly understand the gender impacts of trade agreements. This kind of a  collaborative type of 
effort did not  really lend itself to dispute settlement . He noted that the chapter  in question  was an 
add-on to an FTA that ha d been in place for decades and confirmed that  gender wou ld certainly 
become part of Canada 's forward FTA practice.  
1.165.   As for the point raised by Peru on the reference to individuals  in the proposal , he 
confessed that the provision had been drafted the way it stood , as co -sponsors were not aware of 
a context where a juridical person would have a gender. Members were at the beginning of a 
process where they were trying to find new ways in trade policy to create new opportunities . The 
delegation of Canada  was open to new suggestions  and welcomed the idea of discussing gender in 
market access negotiations as well. Regarding examples of gender  discrimination, he highlighted 
his previous intervention where he had quoted the World Bank report that had looked at barriers 
to female  partici pation in the economy and found that 155 out of 173 economies covered by the 
report had some kind of barrier for participation of wom en that did not exist for men . The report 
concluded that these kinds of barriers were unfortunately still very prevalent an d the delegation of 
Canada  felt that the current negotiations presented one opportunity to make amends to the 
situation. He finally stressed that a lot of delegations agreed that they did not need policy space 
and flexibilities in this area.  
1.166.   The represent ative of Nigeria  request ed a response to his suggestion to replace the phrase 
"shall ensure " with "encourage d to ensure ". In his view, even though  this provision was desirable , 
it was not quite  appropriate in th e domestic regulation  context.  
1.167.   The representa tive of Canada  took note of the suggestion but stressed that even though 
Members could definitely continue discussing the language, the  objective of the co -sponsors wa s 
to have  a binding obligation  and they would not be ready to move to a best endeavo ur type 
formulation.  
1.168.   The Chairperson  invited  delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.169.   It was so agreed . 
1.8  Necessity Test  
1.170.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  introduced the section on the necessity test 
contained in paragraph 6.3 of the consolidated proposal . Paragraph 6.3 was essentially the same 
paragraph, as paragraph 1  b. and the final sentence of paragraph 1 of the earlier proposal on 
development of measures (JOB/SERV/252). The chapeau was  amended to resemble 
paragraphs  3.1 and 6.1 and was highli ghted in brackets. The co -sponsors of this proposal had set 
out the necessity test provision as a separate paragraph, as they did not want to distract Members ' 
attention from discussing other issues pertaining to development of measures. Necessity test was  
clearly mentioned in GATS Article VI:4 and should be included in any domestic regulation package 
to be adopted to fulfil the full mandate , but co -sponsors were willing to consider language options . 
It was his view  that many  Members could live with a neces sity test, even though they did not co -
sponsor the proposal. Necessity test s had been incorporated in many FTAs in different forms and it S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 34 - 
 
  should be in the interest of many Members to see a similar requirement agreed multilaterally. The 
very concept of a necessity test was well known, as it was already present in existing WTO 
Agreements, like TBT and SPS, albeit  with had different wording. The language of the second 
subparagraph of 6.3 concerning  international standards was inspired by GATS Article VI:5,  and 
was hence familiar to Members. In the view of the proponents, this sentence gave guidance and 
comfort to Members but did not create any obligation to use international standards. Instead, it 
created an assurance that if Members followed international stan dards, they would be meeting the 
obligation in question. There were good reasons to follow international standards, e.g. as they 
provide d consistency and coherence which made it easier for MSMEs to access different markets. 
The necessity test itself was cl early covered by GATS Article VI:4. Without this discipline Members 
could hardly ensure by means of binding rules that domestic regulations of other Members did not 
constitute unnecessary barriers to trade. As for the right to regulate, the proposed discip lines were 
not intended to prevent any Member from regulating or deregulating, but merely served to require 
Members to find the least trade -restrictive way to do so. Regarding the non -trade related policy 
objectives that could result in discriminatory trea tment, he noted that the proposed disciplines 
were only applicable to domestic regulation measures, i.e. licensing, qualification and technical 
standards, affecting trade in services. If the measures did not affect trade in services, the 
proposed measures would not be applicable.  
1.171.   The representative of Peru supported the first paragraph as currently expressed. However, 
with regard to the second paragraph, Peru continue d to consult internally.   
1.172.   The representative of New Zealand  considered  the second paragraph  of the proposal on 
international standards to be  very useful. This kind of provision was found in the GATS and many 
FTAs. The second paragraph applied as well to other part of the development of measures proposal 
and was intended to help give guidance to Members in terms of how they could create these 
disciplines. She explained that the second sentence was a presumption that if a Member was 
meeting international standards, it was complying with the obligation, and reassured Members that 
the use of internat ional standards was by no means mandatory.  
1.173.   The representative of Nigeria  noted that a reference had been made to similar provisions 
in SPS and TBT Agreements and enquired if it would be appropriate to import an assessment done 
in those agreements to domest ic regulation in services. He stressed that his delegation was 
familiar with the concept of the necessity test and saw the need to ensure that measures Members 
put in place had sufficient nexus to policy objectives they sought to achieve and should be as l ittle 
trade -restrictive as possible.  
1.174.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked Peru for their support of the first 
paragraph and assured Members that more discussions were welcome on the substance of the 
second paragraph. Regarding Nigeria 's point, h e noted that the concept of  the necessity test had 
been present in many WTO agreements, even if it was applied to a different subject matter, e.g. to 
goods in the SPS and TBT agreements. GATS Article VI:4 had a similar arrangement and 
mandated Members to e stablish a way to remove unnecessary barriers to trade and discipline 
Members ' domestic measures, even if the assessment was going to be different from other 
agreements.  
1.175.   The Chairperson  invited  delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.176.   It was so agreed . 
1.9  Development  
1.177.   The representative of Australia  stated that even though development was always going to 
be an essential component of a domestic regulation outcome, it ha d been difficult for many 
Members to engage on the question of what, if any additio nal flexibility might be required in the 
absence of a consolidated proposal. T he proponents were  now look ing forward to working with 
Members to identify areas where developing and least -developed countries might need additional 
flexibility, time or assista nce in implementing the disciplines.  
1.178.   Australia ha d already shared some ideas in the WPDR on specific provisions that could be 
included in a development chapter to address the interests of least -developed countries in its S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 35 - 
 
  proposal on "Development - Least -Developed Countries ", contained in JOB/SERV/261. LDC 
Members had stated that a carve -out alone was not in their interest and some LDC Members ha d 
suggested that the WPDR Chair text language, which was the basis for Australia 's proposal, could 
be further impr oved.  
1.179.   The LDC Group and the Africa n Group ha d asked whether the proposed domestic 
regulation disciplines would apply automatically to preferential treatment notified under the LDC 
Services Waiver mechanism. As set out in the scope paragraph 1.1 , the discip lines appl ied where 
Members ha d undertaken specific commitments and not to any terms, limitations, conditions or 
qualifications set out in a Members schedule and would therefore not extend automatically to 
preferential treatment provided under the waiver. The proponents acknowledged from the outset  
that an exemption for LDCs would not be sufficient, by itself, as a development outcome.  They 
recogni zed that  there was strong interest from many Members and willingness from co -sponsors to 
work on more comprehen sive disciplines to address developing country interests, including in 
anticipation of the graduation of LDC Members, which was an objective all Members share d. At 
previous WPDR meetings the proponents had  heard from other Members that there m ight be 
benefits in considering alternatives that would move away from a one -size-fits-all approach and 
allow Members to identify specific provisions where they might require a transition period and/or 
assistance to implement the disciplines.  
1.180.   The representativ e of Egypt  focused his intervention on  three messages . As Egypt had 
stated repeatedly in previous WPDR meetings, there c ould be no outcome on domestic regulations 
disciplines without special and differential treatment for developing countries.  It had been a 
surprise for his delegation to see the consolidated text with just a place holder for development, 
and he did not understand until when the discussion on development was going to start and 
whether it would be finished  before or after the MC11,  and with w hat outcome . The absence of a 
text related to special and differential treatment for developing countries form ed a great concern. 
He quote d Alvin Roth , the Nobel Prize winner  in economics, who had said that governments 
needed to know how to recognize a goo d match and make smarter, more confident decisions. The 
representative of Egypt underlined the need to consider the new dynamics of what Members were  
facing , i.e. a  massive wave of austerity measures that shape d the overall trade and development 
climate as  set out in the recent Trade and Development Report. Egypt ha d been a pioneer in 
liberalizing its tourism sector even before entering into GATS commitments. According to Egypt 's 
schedule of commitments, most tourism activit ies already enjoy ed a high degree  of liberalisation 
making Egypt one of  the least restrictive countries in this sector . However, the liberalization had 
still not helped achieve inclusive and sustainable growth of the industry. Enhancing tourism 
competi tiveness depend ed heavily on the government embracing of domestic reform relating to  
human resources , infrastructure  and standards  in addition to  regulatory and administrative 
arrangements.  
1.181.   The representative of Egypt  said that d eveloping  countries  required all the compone nts of 
special and differential treatment: t ransition period s, capacity building and technical assistance.  
The implementation of most provisions would  be related to the implementation capacity of 
developing country Members . Transition period s were needed t o deal with the asymmetries of 
regulation within the  developing countries  and capacity building and technical assistance were 
needed to directly address the difficulties of service s suppliers from developing countries when 
they face d regulatory systems awa y from home.  In line with what India had presented , Egypt 
agree d on starting the discussion based on the previous Chair text s of 2009 and 2011 . Regarding 
transitional periods, he suggested that developing country Member s should not be required to 
apply the  proposed  disciplines for a certain number  of years  that needed to be agreed . 
Additionally, he suggested that developed country Member s should endeavour to accord reduced 
administrative fees to service suppliers from developing country Members.  Developed c ountry 
Members needed to consider longer phase -in periods for such measures in service sectors and 
modes of supply of export interest to developing country Members.  
1.182.   Regarding technical assistance, developing country and LDC Members needed to 
strengthen the ir institutional and regulatory capacities, inter alia  to assess if services suppliers 
from developing countries could meet the relevant requirements and procedures in export 
markets. It was important to facilitate the establishment of technical standards and assist 
developing country Members in building thei r supply capacities through public and private 
institutions and relevant international organizations. Regarding transition periods, he noted that in 
2016 Egypt had introduced the "Sustainable Development Strategy: Egypt 2030 ". Based on the S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 36 - 
 
  internal assessm ent of policy space, Egypt had analyzed ways to enhance its competitiveness, 
capacity and government performance. By 2018 the objective was to enhance its competitiveness 
ranking by 0.1 to 0.2 per cent; by 2020 by 0.4 per cent and by 2030 Egypt aspired to increase the 
ranking by an additional 0.4 per cent. In his opinion, this example gave a reflection of why Egypt 
needed transitional periods and policy space to tackle various externalities.  
1.183.   The representative of India support ed the statement made by the re presentative of Egypt 
and noted the place holder in the proponent 's text. However the DR 2009 and 2011 Chair texts 
had evolved these aspects to a large extent and could form the basis for further discussion . She  
underscore d and emphasize d that any engageme nt on th e consolidated text from the delegation of 
India would be  subject to sound and clear provisions on special and differential treatment.  
1.184.   The representative of Nigeria  underscore d that developing countries and LDCs  would need 
to strengthen their domes tic regulatory capacity and competitiveness . In his view, this would be 
done at on the basis of countries ' own commitments in terms of what their resources c ould bear, 
and more  importantly , in terms of the obligation s that would arise. He recalled that Nig eria had 
submitted its revised services offer in 2008. Currently , Nigeria  had another revised offer that was 
almost finalized  but was hesitant to submit it  outside the context of market access negotiations. It 
was important to achieve a multilateral DR outcome, so Members needed to  listen to each other 
and understand other Members ' concerns. He underlined that it was the responsibility of the 
proponent s to explain , justify  and analyze  the proposal  in a manner that Members were  
comfortable with. He mentioned that currently Members had  sufficient elements to discuss, but 
noted the need for a very robust development chapter . He urged the proponents to conduct as 
many bilateral meetings as possible and gather all Members ' concerns.  
1.185.   The representative of China  registered  his delegation 's general support for a robust 
development chapter . He acknowledged that even though the consolidated text still had a  
placeholder , it was the intention of all proponents to have a constructive discussi on of this 
provision. He thought that  India's textual suggestion s based on the 2009  Chair text were a good 
basis for Members  to continue their discussion . He highlighted  that efforts relating to technical 
assistance and capacity building should be strength ened, so as to help developing country 
Members, especially LDCs , to better integrate into global value chains.  
1.186.   The representative of the European Union , sharing the views of the EU,  agree d with 
Nigeria that the co -sponsors needed to engage in consultations in the coming days. He expressed 
his delegation 's appreciation of the interventions made by  China, India, and in particular Nigeria 
and Egypt. He considered the discussions useful to kick -start the debate  on the potential 
development section of the consolidated  text. He welcome d the initiative taken by India to come 
forward with a proposal on development and , as indicated earlier,  the main reason why the 
proponents had  left the place holder  for development in the text was that they wanted to hear from 
developing Members what would be needed for them to be able to comply with the proposed 
obligation s. He noted that the Indian proposal on development revolved around an exception and 
encouragement for LDCs, time for implementati on for developing countries and technical 
assistance for the purpose of  strengthening regulatory capacity. From the outset those were 
premises  the EU c ould work with  to dive deeper into the subject matter and discuss different 
aspects of those premises , such as transition period lengths  and the strength of development 
disciplines.  
1.187.   The representative of South Africa  was very encouraged to hear so many new voices join 
the conversation and express similar views and concerns. After reflecting carefully on all that ha d 
been said and done, she was of the view that the situation was reminiscent of where Members 
were around this exact time in 2015, as well as when the negotiations collapsed in  2009 and  2011, 
and even before that when views had been  completely polar ized. She was of the view that there 
was no common starting place for the discussion.  In her view, t o say that Members  had a mandate 
and a negotiating body to operationali ze GATS Article VI :4, and making  frequent references to 
twenty years of work was the same as saying that Members had  a mandate and a negotiating 
body to operationali ze all aspects of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. As Members ha d been 
waiting for that to happen after sixteen  years, she asked why domestic regulation  should  be more 
important than agriculture and cotton  issues.  
1.188.   She considered it  interesting that the engagement on the  consolidated  text was dominated 
by the very same Members who had developed the text outside of the WTO and brought it back. In S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 37 - 
 
  her view, there was  no cre dibility , as Members had asked questions and some of the responses 
were non -committal, or repetitive.  The text ha d no basis for discussion.  What Members had  in 
front of them was a compilation of submissions that had been  problematic when they had been  
standing on their own  and now, despite concerns raised,  these same problematic submissions ha d 
been put together in one document, substantively unchanged, and presented to Members  with 
brackets . There was no convergence  even among proponents . She considered th e text to be a 
consolidated text of divergent views . There could not be a ny constructive engagement unless 
Members  knew what they were talking about. The provisions in the consolidated text were 
triggered in instances where authori zation was required for the supply of the service. Yet, the 
proponents had provided mixed responses to the question on what "authori zation" mean t. Some of 
the proponents ha d also indicated that there was no need for a definitions section.  
1.189.   She noted that consciously  leaving multilateral  disciplines ambiguous or obscure  would 
make them subject to  the general rule of interpretation used in the WTO dispute settlement 
process  where they  would be complemented by supplementary means of interpretation, including 
the prepara tory work of the rules  in question , and the circumstances of their conclusion. For that , 
the proponents ' responses to all questions ha d to be answered adequately and had to be placed on 
the formal record.  The introduction of the word "authori zation" in var ious places of the text 
complicate d the discussion, and implie d a broad application , i.e. that the characteristics of the 
service supplier were overtaken by other kinds of licenses or approvals . The delegation of South 
Africa had raised concerns about the scope of the  proposed  disciplines. The  disciplines  applied to 
existing and future measures  at every level of government , i.e. at "central, regional or local 
governments and authorities and non -governmental bodies in the exercise of powers delegated by 
central, regional or local governments or authorities ". The disciplines covered every service sector 
where specific commitments had been  undertaken. In her view, i t was still unclear what the 
expressions, like "relating to " and "affecting " trade in services mean t. She was of the view that 
domestic regulation  rules m ight spill over to other sectors that simply affect ed trade in services. 
The EC-Bananas  case ha d given a wide interpretation to the scope of the GATS, and almost any 
type of stat e intervention, to the extent that it affect ed trade in services, was considered to be 
falling under the GATS . The consolidate d text also refer red to "measures by Members ". As the 
disciplines did not say that measures  had to be trade -related , she enquired what the actual scope 
of the domestic regulation  disciplines  would be.  
1.190.   Members had heard on many occasions that the proponents consider ed their proposals as 
a middle ground text. She asked who this middle ground s ought  to accommodate . The Africa n 
Group  had already expressed the view that the obligations arising from the proposed DR 
disciplines would entail onerous obligations for many developing and least -developed countries . 
There was a group of Members interested in establishing global regulatory benchma rks but at the 
same time this group stated that the disciplines shall not be construed to prescribe or impose 
particular regulatory approaches or any particular regulatory provisions in domestic regulation. 
She disagreed with the above statement and noted that o verall, the criteria in the proposals and 
policy development techniques ultimately pushe d governments towards a "least burdensome " 
approach that could marginalize non -commercial interests even without a necessity test. South 
Africa 's views on the necessity test were clear  and it would never agree to this  provision . She 
considered it ironic that requiring that procedures d id not "unduly " prevent fulfilment of 
requirements  had an element of subjectivity, and it was unclear how this woul d take account of, 
e.g. regional or local governments that ha d obligations to consult communities of interest. It was 
impossible for regulators to predict reactions in advance and the disciplines could therefore have a 
chilling effect  on regulation . The un certainties and potential for challenge were heightened when 
dealing with cross -border trade in services.  
1.191.   She did not support the view that there was a mandate for transparency. Members ha d 
also heard that development ha d to be part of any DR disciplines.  Proponents had also sa id that 
this text wa s very low in ambition and couched in best endeavour language. Some Members  had 
already asked the proponents to provide information from WTO jurisprudence on best -endeavour 
language and there ha d been no response t o this  question . She asked for whom the proposed text 
represented  low ambition. She pointed that the two most important issues that w ould bring the 
majority of developing countries on board , namely qualification requirements and development,  
were missing. Additionally, t here was no agreement on the meaning of "authori zation". 
1.192.   She recalled that o ne delegation had mentioned  that DR negotiations in the past did not 
conclude because of "unnecessary linkages and not because of the nature of the matter ". She S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 38 - 
 
  considered this to be a complete misrepresentation of facts. The 2009 negotiations had collapsed 
because developed countries had refused to agree to the development chapter. There were also 
polari zed views amongst the membership on references in the text t o "pre-established measures ", 
the "necessity test ", and "prior comment ". 2011 negotiations  had collapsed because the 
development chapter was significantly watered down and developing countries were opposed to 
discarding the 2009 text. These views had been expressed by  the same delegation that was 
making linkages in the current agricultural negotiations.  
1.193.   She addressed some of the proponents ' responses about the high contribution of services 
to GDP and the comments about why DR rules were good for developing countries.  In assessing 
the economic rationale of the proposed DR rules, net services importers w ould not suddenly 
become net services exporters. In fact, basic trade data reveal ed that even the largest economy in 
Africa pale d in terms of their services ex ports in comparison with even one of the smaller 
proponent economies.  A simple data analysis with a small sample size of five diverse African 
countries and five proponents , exclud ing EU-28 but includ ing developing and developed countries, 
showed that there  was very minimal export growth of services for those African countries. This 
showed that African countries were  not major services exporters. The point was not to argue that 
there was a direct causal link between imports, exports and trade balance vis -à-vis the proposed 
DR rules , as it mischaracterize d the nature and effect of DR rules.  In terms of the ratio in 2012, 
services exports for those five proponent Members was 48 times more than the sample size for the 
five African countries in the same year. In 2015, the ratio was 90 times more than the sample size 
of the African countries.  In 2016, the total export of services for the EU comprised USD 2 trillion. 
This was more than 22 times the exports in services of the entire African continent. Japan as an 
individual economy had exported more in services than the entire African continent combined. 
Australia 's exports of services were close to the entire exports of the entire African continent.  
1.194.   Looking at this from a policy perspective , she noted that all of the  above meant that DR 
rules w ould reduce the policy space for Africa. This was clear from the data, because developed 
economies were aiming to gain a competitive advantage and remain the dominant players of 
services in the market. The proposed rules w ould seek to ensure their domination of global 
services exports for decades to come.  By imposing restrictive DR requirements, and constraining 
African countries ' policy space, proponent  economies were aiming at obtain ing policy space for 
themselves , as t hey alr eady ha d the  first-mover advantage. In relation to the argument that 70% 
of GDP was services and therefore the rules were important , she enquired what the inflow and 
outflow of services were; whether  there was  a trade surplus or trade deficit ; what the num erical 
value associated with that  was and how  many sectors cover ed that 70% . As GDP was comprised of 
six variables , she asked  to what extent these variables  would  contribute to the success of Africa 's 
structural transformation and w here the shift would be in the balance of power . If one was using 
GDP growth as an indicator, an economy 's consumption, investment, government expenditure and 
export and import level s had to be assessed  as well . Given that Members were at different levels 
of development , they  could not b e using a percentage  only, but should also be looking at 
quantitative value.  She conclude d by stating that the views expressed by Members in the current 
meeting and over the past few months all point ed to the reality that they did not have a common 
understanding on the majority of issues and it w ould be very difficult to move on any aspects of 
the current consolidated text.  
1.195.   The representative of Uganda  made a statement on behalf of the LDC Group . He 
highlight ed that all the points made  by his delegation  in previous sessions still h eld and asked  
them to be reflected for purposes of this meeting.  Secondly, he considered it refreshing  that many 
more Members sp oke up in support of their own regulatory sovereignty.  Regarding the statemen t 
by the proponents that brackets in the text equalled flexibility, he expressed the view that the  
process was not being handled in good faith. If it was true that the brackets signif ied the openness 
of proponents to flexibility , then those areas where the re were no brackets implied that the  
proponents  were not ready to move in the direction of finding convergence. In his view, th e text in 
question which had been  hurriedly put together in order to beat the ten -day rule, was still not 
mature for discussion. It was not clear who among the co-sponsors agree d and who d id not agree 
to the bracketed text. By extension, it would also mean that there were no negotiating partners on 
the other side. The suggestion that brackets signif ied flexibility was deceptive and was simply a 
manifestation of disagreement among co -sponsors.  
1.196.   The language on the right to regulate was  similar to what Members had seen in the past. 
This show ed how far Members  had gone to even find common ground on this basic issue. He S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 39 - 
 
  enquired if the me re recognition of the right to regulate overr ode substantive obligations ; what the 
legal meaning of "recognizing " was and  what the relationship between the right to regulate and 
these disciplines was; w hen a Member h eld the right and when he los t it; whether the right to 
regulate as suggested in the text was absolute, in which case LDCs would not need an exemption , 
or limited . In his delegation 's view, g overnments ha d a duty to regulate and the goals of such 
regulation m ight not necessarily be about furthering trade. Other priorities were also important,  
inter alia people 's access to services, employment considerations, macro -economic and security 
reasons , etc.  If for th ose reasons a regulation was put in place  that was not the "least 
burdensome " or "not objective ", could a Member be challenged under these disciplines in the DSB . 
In the event of a positive response to the above question, he asked where  a right to regulate  was. 
He enquired whether  the right to regulate l ay in the recognition of the righ t to regulate ; whether  
the "recognition " of the right was the same as "holding " and "exercising " that right; whether it was 
the intention of the proponents to suggest that with this language Members c ould override all 
relevant rules and whether  it was self-judging . If it was not to the contrary, then the language 
ought to fall under a substantive provision and the word "recognition " should be replaced with the 
words "shall have ". The general provisions text on this issue was not sufficient and d id not address 
Members ' concerns. In any case the same general provision was made redundant by the 
substantive provisions that follow ed immediately thereafter. Therefore , the operative paragraphs 
in 2-6 were an  exception to paragraph 1.2. 
1.197.   The proposed disciplines would make commercial sense if one w as a net services exporter 
as opposed to being a net services importer. This was reflected in the amounts of value that was 
generated by services trade. The challenge was that LDCs and many developing countries, 
especial ly in Africa , were still developing their services industry, and therefore continue d to need  
policy space. The LDC market access study by the WTO Secretariat indicated that in 2016, LDCs 
only exported 32bn USD in commercial services trade  which  fell by 4% compared to the previous 
year. LDCs had a deficit of 33bn USD  while some other Members had generated  2 trn USD in the 
same period of time. The proposed rules would not necessarily benefit small Members,  but rather 
suffocate them under the rubric of one -size fits all processes and approaches.  He asked how the 
LDCs were even expected to develop their services industry and take advantage of the benefits of 
the waiver mechanism if licensing , qualifications and the far reaching technical standards were 
being con trolled by regulatory policemen outside the respective countries . In his view, the 
proponents were trying to discipline policy space for themselves using the first mover advantage to 
their benefit. He enquired w hy any LDCs and developing country Members with low levels of 
development would want to be put on the same pedestal of multilateral rules with the rich 
countries and by extension surrender any future development aspirations. He considered that that 
did not  make commercial and economic sense.  
1.198.   Regard ing the necessity of the disciplines, he agreed with the proponents that the 
disciplines were necessary but for a very different reason. They were  necessary to the extent that 
they would take away the only tool that developing countries and LDC governments  had to 
intervene and seek corrective measures, and consequently erode the minimal policy space that 
was left to develop a particular sector in developing countries and LDCs that were still growing 
their services export capacity.  He considered that t he pro ponents ha d failed to demonstrate the 
extent to which the existing provisions under the GATS were deficient.  They ha d failed to meet the 
test of value addition with concrete examples. He asked M embers to share with the Working Party, 
with concrete examples , why they f ound that GATS Article VI as it st ood, wa s not sufficient to 
address their perceived concerns especially in light of the existing obligations in Articles VI :1, VI:2 
and VI :5. He enquired whether proponents had attempted to use these provisions and failed ; if 
yes, whether it was  because of the way the provisions were crafted  or because of  their 
implementation . He asked if  the WPDR was the right forum for this discussion or whether Members 
should have it in the CTD Dedicated Session . He enquired w hether the proponents had  undertaken 
a necessity test  on the necessity  of these proposals  and w hat the inherent problem with the GATS  
was as it stood  that the  proponents sought  to resolve . He recalled that New Zealand had 
suggested that they had received c omplaints from their services suppliers on regulatory barriers in 
markets. He asked if the representative of New Zealand could give specific examples of markets 
they had received the complaints from . He asked whether New Zealand had  raised these issues in 
the CTS ; whether  they tr ied to use Art icle VI:2 to seek remedy and failed , or even seek recourse 
under the DSB. He asked h ow Members had tested the existing provisions and found them 
insufficient.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 40 - 
 
  1.199.   Regarding the development dimension and who would bear the implementation costs, he 
was of the view that it was not clear who w ould cover  the cost s. The experience of many Members 
with Technical Assistance and Capacity Building (TACB) in th e WTO  had been t hat no Member 
wanted to be held responsible , no one want ed to take binding rules on TACB, yet they require d 
Members to take on binding multilateral disciplines in accordance with their regulatory practices . 
The reform agenda that Members would be required to undertake  would be extremely extensive. 
This would mean that Members  would have to review all measures , both current  and future,  
affecting trade in services, be they in the form of a law, regulation, rule, procedure, decision, 
administrative action or a ny other form , to ensure that they conform to the requirements in 
paragraph  6.1. This would mean that if Members  were to agree to such disciplines in their current 
wording , they would need to undertake a reform process that would go back , in the case of 
Uganda,  to the time of independence in 1962 , and possibly beyon d. This was not only extremely 
intrusive, expensive, and unnecessary but it was also onerous. He asked w ho would bear the cost 
of such an exercise . He dr ew Members ' attention to some objective da ta. Aid for Trade (AFT) was 
having a downward trajectory. Out of the top ten recipients of AFT only two were LDCs , much of 
the fund ing was geared towards middle income countries as opposed to LDCs. The share of total 
country specific AFT disbursements to L DCs was 31.9% , whereas 68.2% went to low and middle 
income countries. Domestically some major Members were moving away from, or actually reduci ng 
their development packages.  According to the OECD, the 2016 data show ed that bilateral country 
to country aid to the least -developed countries had fallen by 3.9% in real terms from 2015 and aid 
to Africa had fallen by 0.5%.  A clear example was the EIF  which was only looking for a budget of  
320 million  USD to run its programs into the second phase of five years, part of which  was to help 
LDCs develop tier two projects, which would inter alia  help address supply side constraints in line 
with paragraph  1.4 of the Bali Ministerial Decision on the Operationalization of the LDC Waiv er. 
However , as Members had seen  from the pledging conference at MC10, only 90 million had been  
raised. This demonstrate d the disconnect between the reality and the rhetoric on TACB. It also 
demonstrate d a certain degree of re -orientation by the developmen t partners with regard to 
pooling of resources. The narrative was on leveraging of resources to meet the resource gap, 
including from remittances from LDC nationals in foreign diaspora s. What was important for LDCs 
was not just the issue of transition peri ods, it was in effect the development of the respective 
services industry , building supply side capacity with the view to develop LDCs' competitiveness 
and export capacity to create jobs, improve household incomes, and promote social welfare. This 
ability to grow the domestic  industry should not be constrained through unnecessary multilateral 
disciplines.  
1.200.   He recalled that the proponents ha d said that the disciplines appl ied to Mode 1. This was 
just one of the many examples where further discussions were nee ded to build Members ' 
understanding o f the scope and application of some of the issues before they could agree to enter 
into a process of adopt ing new rules on domestic regulation and on how to better regulate the 
cross-border supply of services.  Regarding the issue of transparency, he expressed the view that 
there was no mandate on transparency. Although Article VI :4 referred to "objective and 
transparent criteria, such as competence and the ability to supply the service ", it did not suggest 
that disciplines on transparency would be negotiated. Rather than mandating the develop ment of  
separate transparency disciplines, the Article mandated developing licensing and qualification 
requirements and procedures and technical standards that were based on  transparent criteria. 
Suggesting that transparent criteria was the same as transparency was to stretch the scope of 
Article VI:4 beyond what the drafters of the GATS had intended.  In its Article III, the GATS already 
had a transparency provision. He enqui red if the proponents intend ed to amend Article III  and 
where they g ot the mandate to do so . His delegation did  not see how this w ould add value , apart 
from promoting regulatory capture and control and making LDCs' Parliaments redundant.  In 
relation to the issue of regulatory capture, he also mentioned that the discipline  on prior 
comment s would lead to  the erosion of the sovereign function of Parliaments. He invite d Members 
to refer to Uganda 's comments in previous meeting s on this issue.  
1.201.   He also recall ed the example of Phillip Morris to illustrate the instance  of regulatory 
capture and control. Phillip Morris was the largest tobacco company in the world  which had the  
intention  to kill the UK government 's plan to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes.  The company 
revealed that in opposing government regulation, it had the "potential " to help generate more than 
18,000 responses, including 6,000 from its recruited group of smokers, 950 from industry, 10,050 
from its retail group, 40 from think tanks and 1,000 from a trade union.  This illustrated the impact 
that powerful multinational co mpanies c ould have in influencing regulation, and how the proposed 
DR rules could prevent governments  from regulating in the best interests of their countries. This S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 41 - 
 
  proposal effectively open ed domestic legislative and administrative procedures to foreign 
intervention , including from non -state actors,  in addition to the administrative burden that would 
be imposed.  He asked the proponents what "considering " mean t; how many comments should be 
considered ; whether it was  not enough to say that not all comments s hould be considered ; 
whether  there was a de minimis  threshold ; whether the consider ation necessarily ha d to end in a 
positive outcome for the service suppl iers and what would happen if the consideration was 
negative ; what would happen if one d id not consid er the comments received  and whether that 
could be the  cause for being dragged to the DSB. 
1.202.   Regarding development of measures, he recall ed his earlier  statement on this issue . The 
scope of the disciplines wa s very wide , extending to situations  where a Membe r "adopted " or 
"maintained " measures. This would suggest that measures Members adopt ed in future and those 
they currently maintain ed as part of their regulatory regime  would be subject to the disciplines . 
The GATS ha d defined the term "measure " in Article XXVIII very broadly. Uganda 's concerns were 
two-fold: first, on the retrospective application of the discipline should they be adopted; and  
second, the scope was extremely intrusive , expensive , unnecessary  and onerous. Like Bangladesh 
and other  Members, he enquired as to  the difference in terms of value addition between the 
development of measures proposal and paragraphs 4 and 5  of GATS Article VI  and a sked the co -
sponsors to  share any concrete examples where they had found that current provisio ns of the 
GATS were not adequate to serve the perceived objective of the proponents.  In addition to all of 
the definitional issues raised in the previous session, it was still not clear to  Members who 
determined  what was "objective ", "reasonable ", "imparti al", and what it meant for procedures to 
"not unduly prevent fulfilment  of requirements ". He asked w hat the standard measurement or 
criteria for these concepts  were; what range of competing factors were to be considered and in the 
context of whose legal an d administrative traditions . This was an area where a lot of work 
remain ed to be done to arrive at a common understanding. Uganda  had previously suggested that 
one of the best ways forward was to adopt a common definition by all Members, which could be 
reflected as a footnote . 
1.203.   Regarding the issue of gender, he  recall ed the views expressed in previous meeting s. 
While this was an important issue, the delegation of Uganda did  not see how this  concern ed 
Members ' multilateral trade relations within the meaning of the Article III :2 of the Agreement 
Establishing the WTO. Gender ha d been elaborately  dealt with in other organizations , such as the 
UN. More importantly , this proposal was part of the wider scheme to intr oduce new elements that 
were not part of the scope of the WTO without following due process. As it was, Members  had 
observed that some proponents were very reluctant to bring back original, mandated elements 
under the GATS  VI:4 mandate, but instead propose d entirely new elements . 
1.204.   Concerning the lack of changes to the consolidated text, he considered that in  the current 
meeting Members had spent a lot of time going through essentially the same proposals , as they 
did in June and July  2017. Members were  still left with more questions than answers . He did not 
believe that the consolidated text was  mature for any negotiation. At best it could serve  to have  a 
conceptual discussion. Further, the burden of proof was still on the proponents  and could n ot be 
shifted. It was in the  interests  of the proponents  to take on board other Members ' views and 
concerns. The delegation of Uganda was  not a demandeur , and this was not an area of priority 
interest to Uganda  in the WTO.  He stressed that time was of the essence. Member s required 
clarifications, needed definition s of concepts  and clarity on scope of application.  They also need ed 
to demonstrate to the LDCs, the economy of which could  only support low standards of living and 
was in the early stages of development , what was in it for them in exchange for undertaking these 
stringent and onerous multilateral rules that would erode LDCs' policy space and send their 
regulatory governance to pre -colonial times.  
1.205.   The representative of  the Plurinational State of Bolivia  expressed t he view that the 
proposed disciplines ha d not passed the necessity  test of the mandate. The mandate of GATS 
Article VI :4 had been distorted to accommodate elements that we re detrimental to  Members ' 
ability to regulate. One example  of the above was the tran sparency chapter. In his view , there was 
no mandate in Article VI :4 to negotiate new transparency rules  and Article III of the GATS 
containing requirements for publication and notification  was sufficient . In response to the above 
concern, Members had heard  that transparency disciplines had been introduced in the consolidated 
text, as they were contained in 2009 Chair text.  He believe d that th is was  not enough  and there 
were many important elements in the 2009 DR text that ha d not been included in the consol idated 
text, one of them being definitions.  He considered that it was  not useful to do a "pick and choose " S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 42 - 
 
  exercise of the 2009 and 2011 Chair texts. Bolivia did  not support new standards of transparency  
proposed in the text . He further expressed an opinion that t he GATS d id not apply to measures 
"relating to" trade in services , but only to those "affect ing" trade among its Members. The word s 
"relating to" in paragraph 1.1 should be clarified to correctly define the scope of the proposal. 
Otherwise, in his view, the scope of the GATS had been  extended to cover almost unlimitedly all 
measures  related to licensing and qualification requirements and procedures.  
1.206.   The heading  "Independence " was not easy for Members  to understand  and many  concerns 
had been raised . There was no agreement among the proponents  on the issue , which was evident 
from the bracketed text.  In Bolivia, regulatory authorities  elaborate d on norms, regulations and 
laws with a purpose  that was  not necessarily commer cial. With this proposal the proponents were  
creating a standard that prescribed regulations to be "independent " and favouring commercial 
interests , which was difficult to accept internally in Bolivia. The proposed text require d Members to 
publish laws and regulations in advance  and explain the rationale and purpose of th ose laws and 
regulations . This kind of discipline went  beyond the GATS and was  very difficult to abide by, as it 
was not usual practice in many Members . The GATS provide d for public ation to be done 
"promptly ", but not in advance . GATS Art icle III did not foresee  the possibility of providing 
comments. The proposed discipline was  new and present ed a series of problems due to certain 
sector al sensitivities in different Member s. Bolivia did not support this type of discipline.  In relation 
to technical standards,  it was important to understand how services standards were elaborated in 
proponent countries  and how conformity with those standards  was evaluated . He enquired w hat 
"open and tran sparent " processes mean t and how those were  organized  in proponent  countries. 
There were also proposals by other Members aimed at solving this problem.  The vague and broad 
language in paragraphs 2.6, 6.1 (a) and 6.1(b) that mandated the measures to be  based on  
"objective and transparent criteria " or procedures to be  "reasonable ", or "impartial ", or "adequate " 
was not useful. This kind of language  generate d an effect on regulators to prioritize  policy 
objectives , other than those protecting vulnerable p opulations, or fighting against historical 
injustices , when it came  to developing regulation s. He suggested that p erhaps some practical 
experience sharing by  the proponents  could  clarify how this was solved in practice.  
1.207.   The representative of Swaziland  aligned himself  with the statements made by South Africa 
on behalf of the African Group and Uganda on behalf of the LDC  Group  and other like -minded 
speakers . Members had heard from the proponents that the reason why the text still contained  
bracketed items was  because some proponent M embers had disagreements with others. On the 
other hand, s ome proponents  had stated that this was a sign of flexibility. His delegation 
considered the two statements to be conflicting. He mentioned that w ithout intending to water 
down the efforts by the proponents in developing th e consolidated text , the delegation of 
Swaziland was of the view that  the more discussions unfolded, the less convinced  it was of the 
benefits of th e proposed  disciplines to Swaziland and all developing cou ntries. Moreover, he 
stressed that the concerns  raised  in previous meetings  needed to be addressed. His delegation  had 
hoped that they would be taken on board by the proponents.  He noted in particular two specific 
concerns. The first concern relate d to the supposed mandate in GATS Article VI. In the two 
previous meetings the delegation  of Swaziland  had challenged  this mandate  and still  maintain ed its 
previous stance  that this Article was a dormant mandate that w ould only kick in once the necessity 
requir ement ha d been fulfilled. In his view, i t would be foolish of Members to leave  out this 
element of the Article and develop disciplines without consensus of the membership on the  
necessity of such measures. The necessity requirement required an exploratory process the 
outcome of which lay in establishing  consensus among  the membership.  Another concern ha d to 
do with the right to regulate . Paragraph 1 of the proposal hint ed at granting Members the right to 
regulate. The Article d id not fully grant Members tha t right , but only recogni zed it. He was of the 
view that the proposed disciplines were, however,  prescriptive in both their design and effect , and 
encroached  on Members ' sovereignty. He asked  the proponents to share with the membership a 
model of domestic regulation that fulfilled the proposed disciplines to convince sceptical 
delegations. He concluded that the right to regulate was a sovereign right and that DR disciplines 
aimed to contain it. A small and developing country  like Swaziland  was not willing to give up the 
little policy space it ha d to influence policy changes in pursuit with its  economic and social needs.  
1.208.   The representative of Cuba confine d her intervention to three precise concerns of her 
delegation.  The first one referred to th e fact that many questions previously asked by several 
developing countries were not answered. Secondly, the document d id not represent a step 
forward. Instead it was an amalgam of proposals discussed in the past, many of which ha d not 
reached consensus  even amongst the proponents themselves. Thirdly, she regret ted that special S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 43 - 
 
  and differential treatment was absent and , according to the proponents,  depended on developing 
countries and LDCs ' contributions  to the discussion . She noted that in the last few day s the  
concerns of Cuba had been  raised by many developing countries in similar or even  identical terms. 
This le d Members  to a conclusion that it was not t he same representative group of developing 
countries that gave their views before the summer break . In the last few days there ha d been an 
increasing number of delegations with their various contributions to the debate. More Members  
had orally or in writing  described the realities in their administrations and the need for these 
realities  to be duly dealt w ith and tackled in th e analysis  of the proposed disciplines . Cuba 
considered this as a positive step.  However, despite the fact that there ha d been greater 
participation in the debate , Members  had not  always seen a true readiness on the part of the 
proponents to accommodate  the request s of others. Instead, there was an attempt to convince 
others of their positions and realities in their own countries. She was of the view that this position 
would not  lead Members  to consensus. This was a cyclical situation Members  had experienced in 
connection with the same questions. It was clear to the delegation of Cuba  that at this stage there 
were still major divergences in many areas of the consolidated text and th ose divisions were not 
new. Some of them ha d political rather than technical content  which ma de it even more complex. 
Many Members had  divergent assessments as to whether the right to regulate and preserving 
policy space were duly ensured in the discipline s. In addition to that, special and differential 
treatment that so many Members had  been asking for , had  unfortunately remained outside the 
text. The delegation of Cuba did not  see a clear  and realistic path towards progress on the 
consoli dated text and did not consider the text  to be a good basis for future discussions. She 
share d the specific concerns expressed  by South Africa, Uganda, Bolivia and Swaziland . 
1.209.   The representative of  the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  endorsed the concerns 
expressed by Memb ers earlier and in previous meetings. Some concerns had also been expressed 
by proponents due to  their divergences and that explained  the existence of square brackets in the 
proposal. In his view, Members were  faced with an extremely sensitive issue that ha d to be 
evaluated with great caution bearing in mind the importance of preserving the necessary space for 
the implementation of development policies , as well as defen ding the right to regulate on the basis 
of domes tic interests. In this context the consolidated  text represent ed challenges going  beyond 
the current realities in developing countries which ha d varying degrees of development and 
varying needs. For this reason he considered that the question asked by the African Group 
concerning the need to have DR disciplines was a key issue when attempting to evaluate the 
current  negotiations. Members clearly had different interests : some were in favo ur of improving 
service providers ' conditions , including small and medi um-sized firms, wh ile others were fighting to 
preserve the ability to develop an industrial and productive process which c ould be supported by 
regulators. Many Members expressed  their preference for a paragraph related to the right to 
regulate that was as clear as possible, using the language that left  no room for doubt . Many 
concerns ha d been expressed concerning the single window , particularly by those Members who 
did not have the capacity or the tools necessary for its implementation . The s ame w as true for the  
provisions concerning transparency , which provide d for, inter alia,  the participation of all 
stakeholders in decision making in connection with regulation s. In addition, some terms that 
attempt ed to grant certain flexibilities  had been used. These terms would ultimately have the 
potential of undermining the rights of governments to regulate in order to advance development 
objectives. There were many divergences the understanding of the term authorization and the 
need to have di scipline s on gender . He concluded that the document at this stage could not be 
used as a basis for the negotiations, as the Doha issue of agriculture was still pending on the WTO 
agenda . 
1.210.   The representative of Ecuador  comment ed on various provisions of the consolidated text. 
As for general provisions he considered that paragraph  1.2 needed to address  the question of 
whether or not Members ha d the right to preserve their own areas for public policies and to make 
regulations that they deem ed necessary. On the issue of transparency in paragraph  4 his 
delegation was concern ed that the text went beyond what was contained in GATS Article VI: 4 as 
the mandate d id not warrant  the establishment of transparency  disciplines . Negotiating disciplines 
on transparency  was completely different from the original mandate of Article VI:4  of the GATS 
that did  not require further interpretation. Regarding paragraph 1.5 on technical standards, he 
requested clarity on how to determine whether technical standards were drafted through an open 
and transparent process. The wording of this provision was of concern to his delegation.  The 
language  of paragraph 6 on the administration of measures could also lead to different 
interpretations. Members needed to establish parameters  that would qualify what  "transparency " 
and "objectivity " were and  how they w ere determined. In previous meetings, Members had  looked S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 44 - 
 
  at the possibility of establishing an exhaustive list o f criteria that should be used but the 
proponents still preferred an illustrati ve list. He requested an explanation of this choice. The 
delegation of Ecuador considered that at this stage there had to be a text on development and on 
special and differential treatment that provide d flexibility for developing countries. He ultimately 
believe d that the consolidated text did not present added value and only deepen ed the major 
concerns of Members.  
1.211.   The representative of India noted that services suppliers from developing countries faced 
numerous difficulties in complying with complex domest ic regulations in developed countries. She 
recalled the GATS Article VI:4 mandate to develop domestic regulation disciplines in relation to 
licensing and qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards. In this regard she 
particularly emp hasized the hurdles being faced by natural persons supplying services in foreign 
jurisdictions. The delegation of India was ready to constructively engage with the proponents on 
the development of DR disciplines in accordance with the letter and the spirit  of the GATS. As 
pointed out earlier, areas of the DR Chair text that had been highlighted as having ad referendum 
agreement could be a basis for further discussions. The delegation of India was nevertheless 
prepared to constructively engage on a new appro ach adopted by the proponents. India had 
provided a textual proposal along with the rationale for the proposed changes. She underscored 
that India 's engagement was predicated on three key aspects: first, clarification on the meaning 
and scope of the term "authorization ", as used by the proponents extensively in the consolidated 
text. The GATS VI:4 mandate was for disciplines on five specific elements of licensing and 
qualification requirements and procedures and technical standards and not on authorization.  
Secondly, DR disciplines had to adequately cover disciplines on measures related to qualification 
requirements and procedures, an aspect that had not been dealt with in sufficient detail in the 
current consolidated text. This was particularly important fo r natural persons supplying services. 
The third aspect related to adequate coverage of the principles of special and differential treatment 
for developing countries and not just LDCs, according to the spirit of the WTO and the GATS. India 
had largely sourc ed its suggestions from the 2009 and 2011 Chair texts, which were familiar to 
Members. The LDC Group, the African Group, Bangladesh and other Member had raised queries on 
the consolidated proposal and the proponents had a responsibility to address these is sues 
satisfactorily. The current text was a consolidation of individual proposals with agreement lacking 
among proponents on some key provisions, i.e. on the scope of authorization, transparency, 
technical standards, gender, necessity test, etc. Act ive eng agement from all Members  was 
important in order to have domestic regulation as a deliverable at MC11. It was the responsibility 
of the proponents to address questions and bring confidence to the process. On top of addressing 
regulatory behind -the-border me asures, it was even more critical to address border and entry -
related measures. Addressing DR in isolation would have little or no impact on trade in services, 
unless there was an effort to address facilitation right from the point of entry of the service 
supplier. Accordingly, obligations to discipline behind -the-border measures for qualification 
requirements and procedures would not suffice to provide meaningful mode 4 access. Such 
disciplines would have to be complemented with disciplines on entry of nat ural persons, such as on 
fees, processing of applications, etc. This was crucial for developing countries and LDCs that had a 
specific interest in mode 4. That is why India advocated addressing challenges confronting trade in 
services in a more comprehensi ve manner and with an open mind.  
1.212.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that at the end of a long meeting it was important 
to analyze the views expressed and see what possibilities lay ahead. He admitted that it was not 
surprising that the views expressed  at the current meeting were diverging, as it was almost the 
first time Members were  discussing  DR disciplines  in six years.  The last substantial discussion had 
taken  place in 2011  and was followed by years of very general discussions. For a long time 
Members had been looking at a number of diverse papers which were partly overlapping and partly 
contradicting. As a matter of substance, he confirmed that Switzerland supported the Chair text 
and the consolidated text on the table. He also reminded Members about the previously agreed 
disciplines on account ancy and previous  Ministerial Decisions. The more ideas Members had in 
front of them, the better. Switzerland was  determined to do whatever possible  to bridge the gaps 
and try to  find ways ahead.  In relation to some delegations ' position on the mandate, he 
underlined that it should not be forgotten that the mandate to develop necessary disciplines had 
been agreed by all Members. The co -sponsors had heard Members ' views, opinions and requests  
for clarification. In situations of uncertainty, he urged the proponents to try and be specific . In this 
respect he underlined that Switzerland could live with or without the section on definitions and 
expressed the view that this was the situation of mos t Members. He pointed out that the 
contentious issue of "authorization " might become a potential hurdle in the process. He stressed S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 45 - 
 
  that the necessity test  was clearly part of the mandate . He expressed his delegation 's overall 
concern with a mandate being a controversial matter in the discussions.  
1.213.   The Chairperson  invited  delegations to take note  of the statements made.  
1.214.   It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B. FUTURE WORK AND TIMING OF THE NEXT MEETING  
2.1.  The Chairperson  considered that the question following the substantive discussion at the 
present meeting was how delegations wished to go forward between now and the Ministerial.  She 
reminded delegations that there was a limited time window in the WPDR to advance work, and 
that the window for Geneva -based work would close at one point in the second half of November.  
She recalled that the Director General, in setting out his thinking for the preparation of the 
Ministerial Conference, had urged delegations to advance work here in Geneva and cautioned 
against bringing issues to the Ministerial in which too many gaps would have to be closed by 
Ministers.  
2.2.  The representative of Australia  expressed her appreciation for the engagement and 
discussions during the previous two days,  and thanked Members who had posed questions and 
made specific suggestions. Proponents would respond to questions in writing in the near future.  
She saw real prospects for delivering an outcome at MC11.  She agreed that work needed to 
intensify and suggeste d to hold a further meeting in late October to further reflect on how views 
could be taken on board with a view to reaching agreement between all Members. Proponents 
would work with other Members.  
2.3.  The representative of Israel  supported the continuation of conversations and the scheduling 
of a WPDR meeting so as to pave the way for a meaningful deliverable towards MC11.  From a 
developing country perspective, Israel believed that DR disciplines helped upgrade regulatory 
practice and provided benefits to suppl iers and consumers, and his delegation was willing to invest 
efforts into DR to enhance market access opportunities which would be beneficial to smaller 
players. Members faced the challenge to respond to market realities that had already surpassed 
them and  secondly not to diminish commitments already in place.  Domestic regulation remained 
one of the weakest areas in the system.  The co -sponsors ' text provided flexibility, and required the 
addition of substance to the development section. In addition, two Cha ir texts could assist 
Members in going forward, and he noted that there was not an abundance of time left.  
2.4.  The representative of Cambodia , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group  noted that the 
consolidated text contained no changes to the substantive element s of the texts that formed the 
basis of previous discussions. He had also not observed a move towards addressing many 
concerns that LDCs had expressed, including but not limited to the right to regulate and the overall 
object and purpose of the proposed di sciplines, whether the proponents had tested the GATS and 
found it wanting, and whether the proponents had unsuccessfully attempted to use the available 
mechanisms provided for in the GATS such as domestic courts systems, and/or the DSB. He 
reiterated the question whether the intended outcome of any domestic regulatory disciplines would 
apply automatically to the preferential treatment notified under the waiver mechanism, and if not, 
why that would not be the case . He enquired whether the proponents believe d that an exemption 
for LDCs was sufficient in and of itself, to cause the development of the services industry of LDCs.  
He also reiterated an earlier question on whether the proposals had been subjected to a necessity 
test which in his view was required i n Article VI: 4. 
2.5.  LDCs were willing to continue to work constructively provided that the proponents 
demonstrated that the discussion was not just taking place among themselves  and was expanded 
to the rest of the membership for purposes of convenience; and th at proponents were genuinely 
looking for  solutions. Any outcome had to take into account sections B and C of the LDCs collective 
request, namely: reduction of fees, paper work, as well as onerous procedures and requirements 
for visas, work permits and resi dence permits; and facilitate an enabling environment for 
recognition of LDC institutions and awards, i.e. degrees and qualifications. In light of the time 
limitations until MC11, he was uncertain whether proponents were looking at outcomes for MC11 
or bey ond. He suggested to engage in a conceptual discussion on domestic regulation with the 
view to bridg e the knowledge gap on the scope and extent of application of the proposals including S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 46 - 
 
  on the definitional aspects related thereto, and answering all the que stions posed by Members to 
the proponents.  
2.6.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  recalled that the Direc tor General had 
stated in the Ho D's that the Ministerial Conference could not address texts containing many 
divergences, and had called for realism and address ing areas that could result in a positive 
outcome. He stated that at present, there was no common text even among proponents who had  
maintained several brackets and acknowledged that other things could be improved.  There was no 
value in having meetings that repeated the existing scenario. Another meeting would only make 
sense if it was based on substantive improvements, including writt en replies to questions, and a 
text that could be a genuine basis for progress.  
2.7.  The representative of Switzerland  expressed his support for another meeting before the end 
of October, and counted on the Chair to lead consultations in that regard. He agreed  that more in -
depth discussions needed to take place and hoped that Members would come to the meetings with 
revised and developed positions.  
2.8.  The representative of the European Union  stressed the importance of moving to a text -based 
negotiation, and commit ted to taking the discussion forward bilaterally with other Members. He 
thanked delegations for their concrete text proposals, and stated that proponents would circulate 
their replies to questions in writing after this meeting.  His delegation needed to ref lect how to 
advance the consolidated text so as to make it more acceptable to all delegations, and in particular 
on the issues of special and differential treatment, authorization, the right to regulate, 
transparency, as well as some aspects of administrat ion and development of measures.  He looked 
forward to engag ing with Members bilaterally in the coming days, and considered it necessary for 
the Working Party to meet again before the end of October.  
2.9.  The representative of Canada  stated that his delegation wished to have an outcome on 
domestic regulation at MC11, and acknowledged that this would require substantive work in the 
coming weeks. Co -sponsors would have work to do to resolve difficulties among themselves and 
reflect on recent submissions. In his vi ew, this should not be done behind closed doors, and the 
broader membership needed to have an opportunity to weigh in on the process. Getting a proper 
outcome required input from all Members in the open, and he therefore supported having a 
meeting in Octob er. 
2.10.   The representative of Chile expressed his appreciation for the substantive nature of the 
discussions, and the broad participation by Members. He thanked delegations that had proposed 
textual suggestions  gave support to the proposal. In his view, it was  necessary to have another 
meeting, as MC11 was getting closer, and a lot of work needed to be done on domestic regulation.  
Chile's door was open to delegations that wished to have discussions.  
2.11.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  was encouraged to see progress and 
momentum, as expressed by the many interventions and constructive comments . Korea would 
work with other  co-sponsors on how to reflect the suggestions and discuss with the entire 
membership how to move forward.  He supported the call for ano ther meeting at the end of 
October.  
2.12.   The representative of Swaziland  was against convening another meeting.  The questions of 
many developing countries had not been addressed, which showed that discussions were not  
conducted  in good faith. Responses from ca pitals were still outstanding on the new proposal by 
proponents, and also the written replies that proponents had vowed to provide would need to be 
sent to capital for evaluation.  
2.13.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  considered that the meeting had pr oduced good 
progress, and was o f the view that a text -based discussion  was already taking place. He 
appreciated the useful suggestions and the engagement of a wide group of Members, who had 
shared queries, concerns, and support.  This provided a good basis for further discussions . Co-
sponsors would intensify work in this regard, and he considered a meeting at the end of October to 
be appropriate. Hong Kong, China was looking forward to an MC11 outcome.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.14.   The representative of Ecuador  expressed the view that the Chairperson  would have to take 
a decision whether or not to convene another meeting, based on the analysis of all proposals. He 
suggested that the Chair  should  consult with Members on whether the conditions were ripe for 
having another meeting, which wou ld be the case if a revision of the consolidated text was 
provided in which account was taken of the various positions expressed. He stated that the 
Director General had said in the H oDs that it was preferable to deal with issues that could be dealt 
with a nd leave aside others that would not secure results.  He did not see that the conditions were 
mature for an outcome on domestic regulation at this stage.  
2.15.   The representative of Brazil  was of the view that the need for meetings depended on what 
outcome Member s were aiming for. If a text outcome in Buenos Aires was aimed for, one meeting 
was insufficient, and if no such outcome was envisaged, there was no need for another meeting.  
The question therefore was what substance was there to justify another meeting.  In his view, the 
compilation put forward by co -sponsors was not a sufficient basis for anything, but work was not 
confined to the compilation alone . He noted that India had put forward elements to fill gaps, that 
the 2009 and 2011 Chair texts could be drawn  upon, and that several drafting suggestions had 
been made at the present meeting.  He was encouraged by the statement of the EU to have a fresh 
look at the proposals which he considered necessary in order to go forward.  It was important to 
develop a negoti ating text so as to advance work.  At present, there was merely a proposal drafted 
in legal format, but the Working Party needed to move to something that was called a negotiating 
text, on the basis of which Members could engage. In his view the negotiations had not started 
yet. 
2.16.   The representative of Cuba stated that his delegation was not in favour of the establishment 
of disciplines on domestic regulation which did not represent added value, but on the contrary 
represented a limitation on polici es that Members could take.  Domestic regulation had already 
been discussed in the broader Doha context and not in the conte xt of an isolated outcome on 
services in the context of a Ministerial confere nce. Even though there was a high level of 
participation , there was no margin for convergence in this area in the remaining two months 
before the Ministerial Conference.  A lot still remained to be analysed, and fundamental differences 
had not been overcome. She recalled that the DG had suggested focussing on is sues that could 
realistically result in an outcome, and that in other cases work should continue after the Ministerial 
Conference.  This was the case for domestic regulation. She disagreed with holding another 
meeting unless the proponents met a number of c onditions. It was of fundamental importance to 
open up to other sources, and to reply to questions in written form . The current proposal could not 
be the basis for negotiation.  Another document  was needed. Elements that could not be agreed 
upon needed to b e deleted.  She also noted that capacities of her delegations were constrained as 
MC11 came closer, and meetings should not be scheduled simultaneously with other negotiating 
groups.  
2.17.   The representative of Turkey  welcomed the text based proposals from India,  China and 
others which she considered to be very useful for moving discussions forward. Importance needed 
to be given to the development section and her delegation was happy to work on this issue so that 
it reflected the needs of developing countries and LDCs.  She agreed that holding another WPDR 
meeting was important to progress.  
2.18.   The representative of Afghanistan  supported statements by the African Group, India and the 
LDC Group, and expressed his hope that the substantive proposals by developing countri es and 
LDCs could be incorporated.  He looked forward to a common text acceptable to all Members.  
2.19.   The representative of Mexico  stated that the meeting had been very constructive and had 
exceeded her delegation 's expectations.  The submission of written prop osals allowed Members to 
focus on areas in which to work on the text.  She acknowledged that a great deal of work needed 
to be done, and supported the call for a meeting at the end of October, to allow for discussions in 
an open and inclusive format. Her de legation supported an outcome at the next Ministerial 
Conference.  
2.20.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked Members for their valuable feedback and 
sensed a positive shift in the discussions. His delegation was supportive of an outcome on 
domestic regul ation at MC11 and supported the proposal for a meeting to take place in the near 
future.  S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 48 - 
 
  2.21.   The representative of New Zealand  thanked delegations that had made specific text 
suggestions, as well as questions. She agreed with Mexico that the engagement was 
fundamentally different from the past, with more voices participating, and more text focused 
discussions. Co -sponsors needed to address the remaining concerns, and the only way to do so 
was to keep on talking, which was the reason why New Zealand supported th e proposal for 
another meeting to continue work towards a Buenos Aires outcome.  
2.22.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  noted that in order to reach an outcome, 
a strong will to do so was needed, as well as open and frank discussions with a posi tive frame of 
mind.  On the positive side, she noted that there were proposals, drafting suggestions , a clear 
GATS mandate, and two Chair texts, as well as a profound discussion. Efforts needed to be 
intensified. She agreed with Brazil that a negotiating text was needed and also that proponents 
needed to revise their text to take into consideration Member s' concerns, Her delegation was 
flexible and ready to work in a constructive way with Members.  
2.23.   The representative of Colombia  thanked Members for their constructive contributions and 
questions.  As a developing country that was still developing its regulati ons, Colombia attached 
great importance to an outcome at MC11. He supported the call for a document that could be 
considered a basis for negotiations and contained all proposals that had been made.  Colombia was 
available to continue bilateral and formal di scussions and supported convening a meeting to do so.  
2.24.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  suggested that Members should 
focus on issues on which convergence was possible.  As a next step, answers to questions raised at 
the meeting sho uld be provided in writing.  It was important to have a balanced text on the basis of 
discussions held in last few days and to try and resolve differences. He did not consider a meeting 
on current terms to be worthwhile.  
2.25.   The representative of China  expresse d his satisfaction with the level of engagement and the 
intensity of discussions.  If Members were flexible on the way forward,  he saw a window of 
opportunity. He agreed with Brazil 's assessment that substance was key and called for the 
development of a Cha ir text instead of continuing work on the basis of proposals. Following the 
latest discussions, he saw the contours of a Chair text emerging which would incorporate the 
suggestions from many Members.  Together, the Indian proposal and the proponents ' text f ormed a 
complete puzzle and could serve as a solid basis to continue discussion. He urged the Chair to 
intensify consultations with the membership and come up with a Chair text as soon as possible. By 
its very nature, a Chair text was not a consensus docum ent, but needed to be balanced, complete 
and in accordance with the mandate of Article  VI:4. He was of the opinion that no individual 
Member or group could decide on the scope of the mandate, and that it was the task of the 
Working Party to prepare a text that would be worth considering by Ministers.  Domestic regulation 
disciplines were not a zero sum game and could result in a win -win outcome that respected all 
Members ' interest s and valued the central role of the WTO to promote trade and prosperity.  
2.26.   The representative of  Cameroon  stated that the development aspects needed be to put in 
the centre of work and not be left at the side -lines.  The consolidated text by proponents had not 
taken on board any of the concerns expressed by the African Group . There wa s no use in further 
meetings that repeated the same statements, did not provide replies to questions , and kept 
delegations busy without reflecting any genuine change . A Chair text was therefore not helpful  at 
this stage . 
2.27.   The representative of Nigeria  expre ssed interest to continue the discussion on DR on the 
basis of the comments, and concerns expressed at the current meeting which he hoped 
proponents would take into consideration.  He was not sure if it was timely for the Chair to prepare 
a text, but sugges ted that the Chair should intensify her consultations.  For domestic regulation to 
be finali zed by MC11, Members needed to be pragmatic.  Nigeria expected to have a revised 
consolidated text with a clear section on special and differential treatment.  Clarity  needed to be 
created on substance  and process . Expectations and the level of ambition needed to be managed. 
In terms of scheduling meetings, the concerns of small delegations needed to be factored in.  
2.28.   The representative of Brazil  supported the call for w ritten replies to the valid questions 
submitted by the African Group.  He agreed with  China on the preparation of a C hair negotiating 
text as an input to the discussions  and urged the proponents  to read the room and accommodate S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 49 - 
 
  to the maximum extent possible all the concerns raised.  The Chair had a lot of material to draw 
upon.   
2.29.   The representative of Switzerland  suggested that timing was important when calling for a 
Chair text.  He was of the view that more inputs might arise, and  for a Chair text to be 
comprehensive, perhaps more time needed to be taken before moving to that stage .  
2.30.   The representative of Zimbabwe  considered that the concerns of the African Group had not 
been addressed, and that a meeting at the end of October woul d therefore not be fruitful. The 
consolidated text was not acceptable and no basis for further work. She called on Members to  
focus on areas where consensus could be reached  in line with the calls by the Director General . 
She did not support the developmen t of a Chair text as basis for further work, because  many 
issues were still unclear  and many divergences existed .  
2.31.   The representative of the South Africa  did not agree to a meeting in October unless there 
was a significant change to the proposal  by the pro ponents which her delegation would assess 
before agreeing to another meeting. She did not think that discussions had reached the stage 
where the development of a Chair text  as an input to the discussion would be useful.  There was no 
agreement on the need f or the proposed rules, and the proposals did not contain many of the 
elements raised b y her and other delegations since March 2017 . 
2.32.   On behalf of the African Group , the representative of South Africa  stated that the Group was 
not in a position to agree to m eetings outside of the structures of scheduled clusters.  It was very 
unclear of where discussions were, what the Working Party was doing and what the objective was. 
After listening to the responses, the African Group was of the view that proponents had not  
demonstrated in a satisfactory manner how the proposed disciplines had taken into account the 
Group 's concerns which had been consistently articulated in the WTO for well over a decade. There 
was no agreed starting point for the discussion.  To simply subm it proposals, have limited 
engagement among proponents, and then putting them together was not enough to justify 
entering into negotiations on binding rules subject to dispute settlement. The fact that proponents 
could not agree among themselves on what to  propose diminished their proposals further. The 
consolidated text was merely an amalgamation of proposals that had no harmony.  The entire 
genesis of the text was problematic and had not emerged from a consensus decision to move 
ahead.  The consolidation wa s at best a work in progress and was not fit for negotiation. There was 
no convincing motivation why domestic regulation disciplines were necessary . It was not sufficient 
to make reference to a  twenty year old mandate or to discussions that had taken pl ace over the 
last decade  and beyond, a nd at the same to time cherry pick some issues over others at the 
expense of some previous text and without taking into account the African Group 's concerns.  The 
African Group was not a demandeur  and would not accept that  the burden of proof was shifte d to 
them.  The African Group had already stated that the proposed disciplines would result in 
regulatory capture of their sover eign governments, and she recalled all statements the Group had 
made since March 2017.  African Min isters were  of the view that only issues that ha d received full 
multilateral approval six weeks before the Ministerial should be presented to Mini sters for decision.  
All technical work needed to be concluded in Geneva to avoid turning MC11 into a negotiati ng 
session and thereby raising the risk of failure. She stated that the Director G eneral had called for a 
moment of truth, and asked proponents to make a realistic assess ment of  all issues, including 
those the African Group had raised.  Proponents needed to  recognise that their proposals and their 
new text did not, and w ould not, obtain consensus , and should draw necessary conclusions.  
2.33.   The representative of Nigeria  stated that the timing of a Chair text was very important, and 
consultations should be held on the matter. Proponents had the responsibility to answer the 
important questions raised by India and the African Group.  Nigeria was a middle grounder that 
was in terested that domestic regulation took into account the relevant concerns raised.  
2.34.   The representative of Rwanda  stated that the call for a Chair text looked like an attempt to 
move up another gear.  In the context of  a global picture  of the negotiations , and in line with the 
DG guidance, he considered to pause and a wait the answers to the questions submitted by the 
African Group.  
2.35.   The representative of Peru expressed his support for a meeting at the end of October to 
respond to questions raised and take note  of positions  so as to take the mandated work forward . S/WPDR/M/72  
 
- 50 - 
 
  2.36.   The representative of Swaziland  supported the intervention of South Africa on behalf of the 
African Group and stated that his delegation did not see any reason for a meeting in October.  
2.37.   The representa tive of Nigeria  stated that the position of the African Group was valid, but 
that his own delegation 's view on next steps was to some extent at variance with the Group.  
Nigeria was not a demandeur  but a middle grounder , and he had set out the view of his delegation 
with regard to the continuation of the process in his earlier interventions  
2.38.   The representative of Rwanda , as coordinator of the African Group, expressed the hope that 
the statement of Nigeria would be  duly r ecorded for the purpose of posterity.  
2.39.   The representative of Nigeria,  raising a point of order, called on  Rwanda to speak in the 
capacity of coordinator when South Africa had already spoken for the African Group.  He enquired 
whether the purpose of the inter vention by Rwanda was to intimidate or insult him.  He reserved 
the right to express his own country 's position.   
2.40.   The Chairperson  stated that she had heard a lot of different views and assessments of  the 
current situation and way forward.  She noted that the Working Party on Domestic Regulation was 
body that worked in large part by holding meetings to provide a platform for Members to take their 
negotiating positions forward.  These meetings were of course not a purpose in and of themselves, 
and would not be particularly useful if ideas or positions were not  developed between meetings.  
She recalled that proponents had stated that they would like to advance work with other Members 
in the coming weeks, respond to outstanding questions in writing , and to use a full meeting to 
bring their progress to the WPDR.  Other delegations had stated that a proponents ' text alone was 
not a sufficient basis that could lead to an outcome, and these delegations would like to see at one 
point in the near future a text that went beyond ownership by co -sponsors alone.  As the Chair, she 
was willing to explore if and how convergence could be brought about, and if such convergence 
could eventually result in a draft text, but she noted that the proponents also had expres sed their 
intention to continue to build these bridges themselves. She stated that while prop onents were 
working with other M embers, she would consult on the way forward with delegations and explore 
what convergence could be brought about.  As for a next me eting of the WPDR, she had taken 
good note of the many comments from developing countries on time and resource constraints, and 
agreed with many other delegations that the timing should be driven by the progress made.  
2.41.   The Chairperson  invited delegations to  take note  of the statements made.  
2.42.   It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C . OTHER BUSINESS  
3.1.  The representative of South Africa  requested the Secretariat to make meeting reports 
available to delegations in English and French sufficiently in advance of meetings, as many of 
Members of the African Group were French speaking and reports were used in internal 
consultations of the Group.  
3.2.  The Working Party took note of the statement . 
3.3.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________