RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/137  
 
24 January 2019  
(19-0417) Page: 1/21 
Council for Trade in Services    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 7 DECEMBER 2018 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 7 December 2018 chaired by Am bassador 
Suescum (Panama). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/1 7. 
 
The Chairman  indicated that, u nder Other Business, the Secretariat would  report briefly on its 
discussions with the UN Statistical Division concerning the accessibility of the CPC Provisional.  
 
The agenda was adopted as modified . 
1  ITEM A:  ANNUAL REPORTS OF TH E SUBSIDI ARY BODIES TO THE CO UNCIL FOR TRADE 
IN SERVICES  
1.1.  The Chairman  said that, i n accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for Trade 
in Services was  to consider the annual reports of its subsidiary bodies. Accordingly, he drew 
Members ' attention to t he Annual Report of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services 
(S/FIN/33) ; Annual Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments (S/CSC/24) ; Annual Report 
of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/22) ; and the  Annual Report of the Working 
Party on GATS Rules (S/WPGR/29) . He suggested that the Council take note of the four reports, on 
the understanding that they would be annexed to its own annual report and form an integral part of 
it. 
1.2.  It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B: ADOPTION OF THE ANNU AL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN SERVICES 
TO THE GENERAL COUNC IL 
2.1.  The Chairman  said that, i n accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for Trade 
in Services was to report each year to the General Council on its activities as well as those of its 
subsidiary bodies.  Therefore, he  drew delegations ' attention to the draft Annual Report of the Council 
for Trade in Services on its activities in 2018, co ntained in document S/C/W/379. The Report was 
factual and self -explanatory, covering the period from the 2 017 Report up until the Council 's last 
meeting in October. It contain ed two sm all inaccuracies, however, and he  offered the Secretariat 
the floor to provide an explanation and suggest rectifications.  
2.2.  A representative of the Secretariat  said that the draft  Annual Report did contain two 
inaccuracies. First, in paragraph 3.6, the second sentence was misworded. The draft stated : "Several 
delegations pointed to the elements of the LDC communication that they could support and on which 
they were ready to engage,  but also signalled those on which they had perplexities ". The word 
"perplexities " was incorrect, as it carrie d the notion of "confusion ", whereas the idea it was meant 
to convey in that context was one of "doubt ", i.e. that there were some questions on a few elements 
in the LCD communication. T hus, t he word "perplexities " in paragraph 3.6 should be replaced with 
the word "questions ". Second, in paragraph 7.2, in the third sentence, the word "Canada " appear ed 
twice; t he second reference to "Canada " should t herefore be deleted.  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  The Chairman  specified that the  suggest ion was for  the Council to adopt the 2018 Annual 
Report with two modifications, namely the replacement of the word "perplexities " in paragraph 3.6 
with the word "questions ", and the deletion  of the second reference  to "Canada " in paragraph 7.2. 
In addition , as he had  mentioned under the previous item, the annual reports of the Council 's 
subsidiary bodies would  be annexed to the report for submission to the General Council.  
2.4.  He therefore  propose d that the Council for Trade in Services adopt the draft 2018 Annual Report 
to the General Council contained in  document S/C/W/379, as amended.  
2.5.  It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C: NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO ARTICLE V:7  OF THE GATS  
3.1.  With regard to the notifications made p ursuant to GATS Article V:7 (Economic Integration), the 
Chairman  drew the Council 's attention to the communication s received , respectively,  from Peru and 
Honduras (in document S/C/N/918) ; and from the Philippines, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and 
Norway (in document S/C/N/919).  He suggested that the Council take note of the notification s made, 
and that the agreement s notified be referred to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for 
consideration.  
3.2.  The representative of th e United States  thank ed the respe ctive parties to the  agreements on 
the agenda for their notifications, pursuant to the obligation in GATS Article V:7. His delegation 
looked forwa rd to the timely review of those  agreements under the RTA Transparency Mechanism 
and urge d all parties to submit the necessary data to the WTO Secretariat as soon as possible so 
that it might  undertake the work necessary to prepare a Factual Presentation for circulation to 
Members.  
3.3.  He also noted  that, as set out in the RTA Tran sparency Mechanism, parties had  agreed to 
submit notifications of RTAs as early as possible, and as a rule, no later than directly following the 
parties ' ratification of the RTA, or any parties ' decision on application of the relevant parts of an 
agreement, and before the appli cation of preferential treatment between the m. According  to the 
notification from Peru and Honduras, the RTA between the two parties ha d been in force since  
January 2017, almost two years earlier . His delegation asked that all Members provide notifications  
of RTAs in a timely manner.  
3.4.  He also took the  opportunity to pose several que stions to the Members of EFTA. He noted that 
the EFTA -GCC Agreement, which  had entere d into force on 1 July 2014, had  never been notified to 
the WTO, despite the clear requiremen t of GATS Article V:7. His delegation had  reviewed the text  of 
the agreement and it appeared  that the EFTA -GCC Agreement followed  a similar structure and 
contained  similar Annexes of specific service sector commitments to t he EFTA -Philippines 
Agreement. He  enquired why the EFTA Members ha d decided to notify the Philippine Agreement but 
had failed  until then to notify the GCC Agreement. He asked the EFTA Members to  please confirm if 
preferential service s market access had  been extended or received  from the GCC parties under the  
agreement  in question and, if so, if they could provide Members  with an update on plans to notify 
that agreement under GATS Article V:7. His delegation called upon both the EFTA and GCC parties 
to fulfill the transparency ob ligations they had  committed to both under the GATS and under the 
RTA Transparency Mechanism.   
3.5.  The representative o f Norway  thanked the United States for its questions and wished to provide 
some information regarding the notification of the EFTA -GCC agreem ent. The agreement had 
entered into force on 1 July 2014 and the GCC had finalised its implementation on 1 July 2015. The 
delayed implementation had caused delays in the notification process. EFTA Members were aware 
of the situation and intended to notify the agreement to the WTO. Efforts had recently been stepped 
up to remedy the situation.  
3.6.  The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
3.7.  It was so agreed . S/C/M/137  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4  ITEM D: OPERATIONALIZATION  OF THE LDC SERVICES  WAIVER  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, at the previous Council  meeting, the LDC Group had submitted a 
communication on "Possible Elements for a Council Review of the Operation of Notified Preferences ", 
contained in document JOB/SERV/284.  Members had thanked  the LDCs for the written 
communication and  had offered their in itial reactions and comments. He understood  that, since the 
Council 's previous meeting, delegations had  been talking to each other, to try to see how t o make 
progress on th at issue. For his pa rt, he  had also met with some delegations , to try to identify a way 
forward on the LDC Group 's proposals.  
4.2.  The representative of Uganda , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, wishe d once again to 
thank all Members that had made notifications pursuant to the LDC services Waiver D ecision and for 
their continued support to the LDC Group in furtherance of  the operationalization of the W aiver.  As 
Members would recall, at the October meeting of the Council, the Group had put forward suggestions 
on possible elements  for a review of the operation of notified preferences. Since then, the Group 
had held consultations with various notifying Members on the way forward based on its intervention 
under that  agenda item.  
4.3.  The Group was  happy to share that it believe d the Coun cil could make progress on holding a 
dedicated session , to engage in an information -sharing exercise on how Members we re building 
awareness of the benefits of the  preferences in LDCs, how they we re going about increasing access 
to services from LDC supplie rs, LDCs experiences as beneficiaries and users of the notified 
preferences as well as other elements as outlined in the Waiver D ecision. The Group was open to 
Members providing any information available they deem ed useful to share.   
4.4.  The LDC Group wished  to stress that the dedicated discussion did not replace the standing item 
on the Council 's agenda with respect to LDC Services Waiver.  
4.5.  They would like to agree on a date in 2019 , perhaps in the second or third quarter, to hold the 
dedicated discussion or session. The Group also noted  that LDCs and notifying Members should be 
prepared for the discussion. To assist LDCs and Members in such preparations, the Group request ed 
a Secretariat briefing to r efresh Members and LDCs on the W aiver, the LDC collective r equest  and 
the notifications submitted.  
4.6.  Furthermore, one question that had arisen in the Group 's consultations was  what information 
would  be exchanged in the dedicated session and in what format . In addition, LDCs had discussed 
developing an agenda to gui de Members  and frame t he contours of the discussion. In that regard, 
it might be worthwhile if the Chairman  could hold an informal meeting to discuss the agenda and 
expectati ons for the dedicated session. Such  consultations could be held early in 2019 . 
4.7.  The representative of China  firmly support ed the integration of LDCs into the multilateral 
trading system. His delegation  attach ed great importance to the operatio nalization of the LDC 
services W aiver, and was willing to engage in constructive discussions in the future.   
4.8.  He took the opportunity to briefly present  the efforts China ha d made to support the integration 
of LDCs into global trade, especially with regard to trade in services. China ha d been providing 
technical a ssistance to other developing M embers under the South -South cooperation framework, 
helping other developing  Members, and in particular LDCs , to reduce poverty, improve the livelihood 
of their people, and enhance their capacity for self-development. China supported  the capacity -
building of LDCs mainly through human resources cooperation. In 2018 , China ha d provided training 
opportunities to more than 2000 persons from LDCs, in forms such as workshops, technical training 
courses and academic program mes. Main beneficiaries of China 's program me include d Afghanistan, 
Nepal, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cambodia, Benin, C had, Lao PDR , Djibouti, Bangladesh  
and the  Gambia. China would  continue to enhance its technical assistance to LDC service suppliers 
in the future.  
4.9.  The repres entative of the European Union  said that, as his delegation had explained in the 
past, the standing item on the Council 's agenda would have been the ideal space to hold those 
discussions. However, after some conversations with the LDC Group and following t heir outreach, 
for which his delegation was grateful, the EU was ready to be open -minded and, if this was of 
importance to the LDC Group, supportive of holding a dedicated session. He suggested that the S/C/M/137  
 
- 4 - 
 
  event be a broad conversation on trade in services an d LDCs, with of course the Waiver in the 
background but with a large and flexible agenda that allowed all Members to bring their perspective 
and information as they saw fit. The EU firmly believed this to be an essential aspect for the success 
of the dedic ated session. His delegation was ready to contribute to shaping the event.  
4.10.   The representative of Australia  said that, a s emphasised in previous meetings, her delegation 
was committed to supporting  the operation o f the LDC s ervices Waivers and implementatio n of the 
relevant MC10 Nairobi D ecision. Her delegation support ed sharing information on technical 
assistance that helped  LDCs' participation in trade in services which complement ed Waiver 
preferences. As said previously, Australia  thought that the informa tion-sharing should be b oth in 
terms of Members that had  notified preferences  and from LDCs about how services trade ha d been 
incorporated in their national development plans and wh at capacity -building efforts had  been most 
effective from the ir perspective.  
4.11.   It would be useful to look for ways to more effectively use the standing agenda item in the 
Council, which wa s why Australia had  suggested to  start the proposed information -sharing under 
that item. However, her delegation  was also open to ex ploring the idea of a standalone meeting.  It 
was essential that the objectives and agenda of any such meeting be in line with the Nairobi Decision 
and cover  all perspectives.  Australia could be ready to provide information in line with the timeframe 
sugges ted by the LDCs  and look ed forward to fully engaging in th e exercise. As always, her 
delegation continue d to encourage Members that had  not notified preferences to do so.  
4.12.   The representative of New Zealand  said that his delegation was pleased to have notifi ed 
preferences under the LDC Waiver and recognised the importance of supporting greater participation 
by LDCs in international trade in services. New Zealand appreciate d the efforts and outreach of the 
LDC G roup and was open to a stand -alone session of the Council . Like the EU, his delegation saw 
value in a broad and flexible agenda to en sure the success of the session, and, l ike Australia, would 
be interested to hear LDC perspectives and experiences.   
4.13.   New Zealand would be pleased to share its experience in  more detail. This could include, 
amongst other topics, New Zealand support, alongside Australia, for regional trade portals for Pacific 
Island Countries, with their delivery partner UNCTAD.  He looked forward to a constructive discussion 
going forward.  
4.14.   The representative o f India reiterate d that her delegation attached  utmost importance to the 
meaningful implementation of the preferences granted under the LDC services Waiver by all 
preference -granting Members with the ultimate objective of increasing the LDCs' share in global 
export s of services.  
4.15.   As mentioned at the previous meeting, India supported  the elements contained in the 
communication from the LDC Group titled "Possible Elements for a Review of the Oper ation of 
Notified Preferences " (JOB/SERV/284 ). Her delegation also support ed information -sharing sessions 
in the Council, including the organisation of a back -to-back workshop that would bring together all 
relevant stakeholders. Those  events should provide occasions for notifying Members and other 
Members to update the Membership and other stakeholders on the steps they were taking regarding 
the implementation of the preferences granted under the Waiver. India  also support ed the LDC 
request for the briefing sessi on by the Secretariat . 
4.16.   She recalled tha t, as a part of the preferences it had granted, India had notified that at least 
25% of all te chnical assistance and capacity building opportunities offered by the India n Ministry of 
External Affairs (MEA) would be solely earmarked for LDCs. Her delegation  was happy to report,  as 
per the information at its disposal, that  preference has been utilised effectively by LDCs ; in the 
previous  three years, since the preference had been notified, approximately 50 % of more than 
10,000 training slots of the MEA 's ITEC  programme ha d been utilised by LDC s. She  encourage d other 
Members to also provide updates on the steps  they had  taken regarding the implementation of 
preferences under the Waiver.  
4.17.   The representative of the United States  thank ed th e LDCs for their ongoing efforts at 
consultation and engagement since the previous  meeting. He had welcomed the opportunity to 
informally exchange views on that  issue, and believe d that continued open dialogue will greatly 
assist Members  in finding a path forward that would help achieve the shared objective of using the S/C/M/137  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Council  as a constructive venue for discussing LDC participation in global services t rade and for 
addressing the LDC s' ongoing interest in utilizing the preferences under the W aiver.  
4.18.   As ind icated at the October meeting, the United States viewed  the LDC Waiver as a very 
narrow instrument and one that needed to  be put in context with the full range of instruments 
available to assist LDCs integrate their services exporters regionally and global ly. His delegation had 
also indicated that it had always understood the Nairobi Decision to speak of a process that was 
ongoing, and that relied on an equal and open exchange of information among all parties, so that 
Members might  be able to identify succe sses related to the Waiver as they occurred, and as needed, 
to collectively respond to any unexpected challenges that might arise. He understoo d that the LDCs 
were seeking a more concrete, time bound  'review ' to focus attention on that  important outcome.  
Those respective goals were not mutually exclusive and collectively Members  could work towards 
both goals in a cooperative and collaborative way in the Council.  
4.19.   In terms of process, the LDCs had  made a request to the Council to consider a specific date 
in the second quarter of 2019 to hold a meeting which included a focus on the LDC Waiver.  His sense 
was that timing  gave Members only one meeting in the early spring to prepare, but he would have 
no objections to focusing efforts toward a second quarter meeting of the Council.  He had also taken 
note of the LDCs ' excellent suggestion that the Council convene informally to prepare the meeting.  
4.20.   In terms of substance, he  had the following suggestions to ma ke for Members' consideration. 
If it was going to be a  truly collective effort, any review could not  be limited to the question of the 
adequacy of notified preferences, but also needed to include an assessment of the individual and 
collective efforts undertaken on the ground to utilize the full scope of marke t access opportunities 
for LDC service providers, and whether or not specific preferences were in and of themselves an 
effective or appropriate tool to support broad -based economic growth and expanded cross -border 
trade in services. It was essential to hav e an equal and commensurate commitment to transparency 
and information gathering and sharing among all Members, and particularly from the LDCs 
themselves.   
4.21.   The proposal from the LDCs required  a significant eff ort be undertaken by notifying M embers, 
which w ere an extrem ely small subset of the entire M embership, to go outside the competency and 
information available inside their respective  Trade Ministries and to collect and report on information 
that was held by other agencies, either from development assist ance agencies or a wide and diverse 
range of service sector regulators.   
4.22.   The United States would undertake that effort only on the understanding that the burden was 
shared with its development partners and the LDCs themselves. The LDCs we re best placed to collect 
and report on specific technical assistance and capacity -building measures that ha d taken place at 
their request and on behalf of their service  suppliers and trade community.  As previously mentioned , 
US assistance was demand  driven, and implementat ion of technical assistance and capacity building 
projects was decentralized at the national level , guided by national priorities.  It would  therefore  be 
important to know wh at specific activities had  been requested at the national level, and how technical 
assistance and capacity -building implementing agencies ha d responded. That information reside d 
primarily  with the LDCs themselves.  
4.23.   Therefore, with respect to the first bullet of the LDC proposal under paragraph 2.1, his 
delegation would need to see th at element broadened, so that all Members, including LDCs, were 
encouraged to report on the specific information included in that bullet.  
4.24.   The same logic applie d to the second bullet;  LDCs themselves were better placed to provide 
information or assessment of  the use of the preferences, as direct outreach to LDC trade 
communities would certainly be a more effective means of collecting that information. The second 
and third bullets could be collapsed to eliminate the false distinction between the information be ing 
sought.  
4.25.   Likewise , the fourth bullet should also be widened to include the experiences of all Members, 
particularly LDCs, and should be expanded to include information not limited to technical assistance, 
but also relating to developments and efforts undertaken nationally and regionally by the LDCs, 
either of a technical  or policy nature, that supported  increased participation in global services trade. 
In that regard, he drew attention to the helpful document referenced by the LDCs, document S/C/M/137  
 
- 6 - 
 
  WT/COMTD/L DC/W/66 , which referred to a number of interesting and important developments, 
including for example telecommunications re form in Sierra Leone, which had  led to an increase in 
services exports . Those developments would be important to share, as they relate d to future 
potential opportunities for LDC service providers which would be lost if Members  narrowly focused 
on previously concluded technical assistance program mes.  
4.26.   The United States  believe d that the first step in Members ' efforts should be a robust 
information exchange, which would give context to any assessments or possible conclusions to be 
drawn with respect to the LDC Waiver. Such an  exchange could take place over time, and could be 
done under t he dedicated item on the agenda, b ut he stressed that it was a necessary input for the 
eventual review.  
4.27.   Efforts undertaken elsewhere needed to be part of th e overall discussion.  For example, he 
recall ed the substantial work the International Trade Centre ha d undertaken with respect to the LDC 
Waiver and their  useful publication, "Making the Most of the LDC Services Waiver " published in 2015. 
That publication suggested  ten immediate steps which LDCs could take, both independently and in 
partnership with technic al assistance providers. It also provide d suggested links to existing ITC tools, 
program mes or projects which could as sist LDCs with implementation. I t would be useful to review 
those ten steps, and to begin the information -sharing process by seeing who ha d done what 
domestically, and what resour ces ha d been availed of. He would ask that LDCs review tho se steps 
and that Members  be prepared for an initial exchange early 2019 related to these suggestions or 
any other information relevant to paragraph 2.1 of the LDC proposal.  
4.28.   He also suggested looking closely at the Enhanced Integrated Framework, given the specific 
focus that program me had on developing capacity within LDCs. As each LDC ha d a donor focal point, 
it would be useful to hear from the LDCs directly about what their services priorities were and how 
they were using the EIF structure to ensure that their priorities were being addressed. E xtensive 
DTIS reports were also carried out for each LDC, and the results of those diagnostics would be helpful 
for Members ' efforts in that context .  
4.29.   In con clusion, his delegation welcome d the opportunity to engage constructively with LDCs 
on enhancing their participation in regi onal and global services trade. The United States believe d 
that Members needed to progress with a shared commitment and a shared res ponsibility, and that 
any review had to  take into account the broader context of LDC engagement in g lobal services 
participation.  
4.30.   The representative of Thailand  thanked  the LDC group for their initiative. Thailand was one of 
24 WTO Members that had notifi ed preferential treatment in favour of  LDC services and service 
suppliers under the Waiver. Her delegation was  committed to the meaningful implementation of 
notified preferences, and to the fulfilment  of the Nairobi Decision, including the initiation of a process 
to review the operation of notified preferences, on the basis of information provided by Members. 
Therefore, Thailand  would be happy to carry forward  work that was in line with that Decision, taking 
into account the different capacity levels and limitations of notifying Members in providing any 
specific data on services trade.  
4.31.   On the other hand, like other previous speakers, her delegation  would also be interested to 
hear from LDCs if their ser vice suppliers were encountering any difficulties for the utilization of the 
preferences granted. Thailand  believe d that this would be helpful for notifying Members to consider 
demand -driven technical assistance or capacity -building measures that could add ress genuine needs 
of LDCs service suppliers and enable them to reap the benefits from notified preferences.  
4.32.   The representative of Canada  thanked the LDC group for their proposal and for their 
constructive engagement by consul ting with Members and being  open-minded. Canada recognized 
the importance of the  operationalization of the LDC s ervices Waiver and the participatio n of LDCs in 
the multilateral trading system. Her delegation was open to consider the idea of a dedicated  Council  
session and would echo th e comments made by the EU and New Zealand; Canada  also saw value in 
having a discussion with a broad participation and a flexible agenda.  
4.33.   On the content of the discussion, her delegation would support having a conversation on LDC 
priorities and how ODA pr ojects were aimed at building capacity in LDCs. Canada could provide some 
exam ples of its relevant projects. Her delegation would also be interested in hearing from LDCs S/C/M/137  
 
- 7 - 
 
  regarding their own assessment of the use of the preferences, and an y specific difficu lties that had  
been encountered.    
4.34.   The representative of Norway  expressed appreciation for the outreach efforts by the LDC 
Group and recognised the need for all Members to work hard on measures that facilitated the 
operationalisation of the LDC Waiver. A d edicated Council session could be a constructive way to 
move forward and her delegation looked forward to discussing the format and content of such a 
session in the near future.  
4.35.   The representative of Nigeria  commended the LDC Group for their proposal, con structive 
engagement and outreach. His delegation was also supportive of the Council holding a dedicated 
session  to conduct relevant work . He continued to urge  Members to undertake demand -driven 
capacity building  measures  to enable LDC suppliers to take advantage of the preferences under the 
Waiver. He also believed that LDCs should be encouraged to increase awareness of the preferences 
domestically and regionally, and provide feedback on the specific challenges they faced  in taking 
advantage of the preferential treatment available. He could also support the proposal for a 
Secretariat briefing. Finally, his delegation was open to exploring appropriate recommendations that 
the Council could also make on the next steps that c ould be taken towards enhancing the 
operationalisation of the Waiver.  
4.36.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  also expressed appreciation for the LDCs ' efforts 
to reach out to delegations. Korea attached great importance to the LDC services Waiver and was 
one of the Members that had notified preferences in favour of LDC service suppliers. In that regard, 
her delegation believed that it was important to encourage all Members to engage  in a dialogue, 
including the LDCs and notifying Members. Korea looked forward to future discussions on the issue.  
4.37.   The representative of Uganda  wished to expr ess the LDC Group 's thanks to all Members who 
had taken the floor  and to all the notifying Members  for their continued support, especially as 
delegations were working t owards the initiation of a review of notified preferences. The Group looked 
forward to working with all Members, as well as the Chairman, to shape the agenda for the Council 's 
dedicated session to be held in 2019.  
4.38.   The Chairman  said that the discussion was testament to the positive results that could be 
obtained from direct contact and exchanges amongst delegation s, and he wished to thank the 
Members concerned. H is underst anding was that the Council could agree to hold a dedicated session, 
at a date to be de termined sometime in the second or third quarter of 2019. In advance of the 
following meeting of the Council, he would contact the relevant delegation to further refine the 
format, date , content and overall organization of the dedicated session, and would convene an 
informal meeting to try to reach a consensus on the relevant elements. He suggested that the Council 
proceed as he had outlined and take note of the statements  made . 
4.39.   It was so agreed . 
5  ITEM E: WORK PROGRAM ME ON ELECTRONIC COM MERCE  
5.1.  The Chairman  invited any delegation wishing to share information under the sub -item on 
'exchange of information and experiences based on submissions by Members' , or to intervene more 
generally under the Work Programme, to do so at that juncture.  
5.2.  The representative of  India welcomed the MC11 Decision reaffirming the 1998 Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce, which had an exploratory and non -negotiating mandate . While 
e-commerce had created new and exciting trade and investment opportunities, it had also posed 
several new infrastructure and regulatory challenges, which needed to be addressed , including the 
need to bridge the digital divide.  Against that backdrop, South Africa and India had introduced a 
proposal 'Moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions: Need for a re -think' 
(WT/GC/W/747) which had been discussed at an open -ended meeting of the General Council held 
on 27 November 2018.  
5.3.  The realities prevailing in 1998, when WTO Members had agreed for the first time to the 
temporary moratorium on customs du ties on electronic transmissions, had changed significantly. 
Those changes required a re -examination of the implications of the Moratorium, particularly from a S/C/M/137  
 
- 8 - 
 
  development perspective.  As explained at length by India at the meeting of the General Council, the 
Note prepared by the Secretariat  on the 'Fiscal Impact of the Customs Moratorium on Electronic 
Transmissions: The case of Digitisable Goods ' (JOB/GC/114) grossly underestimated  the tariff 
revenue loss mainly incurred by developing countries. Most impor tantly,  the study was  silent on 
some very large  negative impacts  of the Moratorium , such as those relating to digital industrialisation 
in developing countries  as well as on  how, with t he advent of Industry 4.0, the Moratorium would  
render meaningless the existing GATT bound tariff rate s, which were typically higher in developing 
countries , and for  which those countries  had had to make concessions  in the Uruguay Round.  
5.4.  Going forward, India proposed to continue engaging with Members and looked forward to more 
comprehensive and empirical studies  to guide the Membership in their decision -making process. The 
MC11 Decision on the Moratorium would continue until December 2019 and, therefore, Members 
had a full year to revisit the various issues on the Moratoriu m they had identified.  In the current 
exploratory phase of the Work Programme, India considered that emphasis should be put on the 
need to understand the full scope and dimensions of the various issues involved, such as those 
mentioned earlier by her deleg ation, and address the knowledge gap that existed in th at area.  
5.5.  Some Members were keen to have rules on e -commerce. In her delegation's view, the gains 
from e -commerce should not be confused with the likely benefits of rulemaking in e -commerce. 
While  Memb ers had seen the benefits of e -commerce both in goods trade on electronic platforms 
and in the convenient delivery of services, and supported its growth and the benefits it brought to 
consumers, negotiations on rules and disciplines on e -commerce would be highly premature at that 
stage, especially given the highly asymmetrical nature of the existing global e -commerce space. 
UNCTAD's recent "Report on Trade and Development 2018 " was a very timely warning to developing 
countries  on how they could lose out to digital monopolies, unless they t ook charge of their trade 
and investment policies in the digital era.   
5.6.  She wished to reiterate India's serious concerns on having parallel discussions on e -commerce 
under the Joint Statement Initiative, with clear rule -making objectives, which run contrary to the 
exploratory mandate of the 1998 multilateral Work Programme that had been reaffirmed by all 
Members at MC11.  
5.7.  The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation had been reflecting  on how to better 
engage in the discussions taking into consideration their  cross-cutting nature. Members were aware 
of developments taking place  on e-commerce , particularly in the context of the Joint Statement 
Initiative, in which Nigeria was an active participant . Such  a process was o pen and transparent, and 
ideas were welcomed and e xchanged. Discussions were without prejudice to Members ' position s. 
Overall, discussions in the context of the Joint Statement Initiative were progressing. It was not 
possible to draw conclusion s as to what would happen in that process. Some could see p ossibilities 
for future rule -making. In his delegation's view, it was important to discuss the opportunities arising 
from e -commerce, but also the challenges faced particularly by dev eloping  and LDC  Members , as 
well as MSMEs . He encouraged Members to participate in those discussions in an open -minded 
manner, sharing their ideas with a view to achieving a win -win situation for the benefit of all 
Members.  
5.8.  As to the discussion on the Work Programme held under t he auspices of the General Council , 
Members had expressed different views on how to address the Moratorium, particularly its revenue 
implications. In his delegation's view, information -sharing and further analysis on the implications 
of the Moratorium shou ld continue and Members should be able to raise specific concerns.  
5.9.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation had fully engaged in the 
discussion that had taken place at the General Council meeting held on 27 November. He wonder ed 
whether it was appropriate to discuss customs duties in the Council for Trade in Services. While his 
delegation did not see the C TS as the right venue to have that discussion, he wished to make clear 
that the position of the United States on the issue had  already been well articulated at the General 
Council.  
5.10.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  expressed his delegation's support 
for the proposal on the Moratorium submitted to the General Council by India and South A frica, 
which also took into consideration elements of the UNCTAD Report. In his delegation's view, it was 
important to examine all issues referred to in the proposal, as well as other issues related to the S/C/M/137  
 
- 9 - 
 
  implications of the Moratorium, which could contribute to clarify ing the matter. Those discussions 
would underscore the importance of the Work Programme and show that it was possible to address 
the concerns of developing Members.  
5.11.   The representative of New Zealand  said that his delegation considered that e-commerce was 
playing a key role in driving economic growth and development, particularly for those counties that 
were geographically distant. E -commerce offered  opportunities that would continue to evolve and 
contributed to overcome boundaries traditionally posed by  distance, creating new, more inclusive 
and sustainable models of global trade that benefit ed Members' communities. In his delegation's 
view, the WTO could, and did  play an important role in e-commerce , particularly by providing clarity 
to existing trade r ules, which had  clearly helped enable growth f or the benefit of all Members. 
Therefore, New Zealand s upport ed all discussions on e-commerce in the WTO. His delegation's 
position on the Moratorium had been articulated at the General C ouncil.  
5.12.   The representat ive of Canada  said that her delegation attached great importance to e -
commerce as it was an area that could bring many opportunities to both developed and developing 
countries, as well as MSMEs and women entrepreneurs. Her delegation had actively participa ted at 
the General Council meeting on the Work Programme held on 27 November, where Canada had 
posed some questions to the proponents. Based on those constructive discussions, the Chair man of 
the General Council had been reflecting on how to move forward. She wondered how a discussion 
in the CTS could advance the discussions taking place under the auspices of the General Council. At 
the same time, she stressed that Canada had clearly stated its position on the matter at the General 
Council.  
5.13.   The Chairman  said that the discussions in the C TS should not interfere with the work being 
carried out under the auspices of the General Council. Members might comment on the matter as 
they deemed appropriate within the context of the work of the Council.  
5.14.   The representat ive of the European Union  had wondered if India wanted to generate a 
conversation on the Moratorium in the CTS, but agreed with the Chairman  that the CTS might not 
be the appropriate place to discuss the issue  and he would therefore refrain from any further 
comments in that regard . 
5.15.   The representative of Mexico  said that she also wonder ed whether the intention of the 
proponents was to bring the discussion of the Moratorium to the C TS. She pointed out that Mexico 
had already expressed  its position on th e matter at the General Council . 
5.16.   The representative of South Africa  said that customs duty issues were also mentioned as a 
specific point under the C TS Work Programme and, therefore,  Members could have an opportunity 
to express their position  on the issue at the Council for Trade in Services . More generally, her 
delegation saw the discussion on the Morato rium taking place at  the General Council.  She pointed 
out that h er delegation's position on the matter was on record.  
5.17.   The representative of China  thanked India and South Africa for their proposal on the 
implications of the Moratorium which was an important topic for discussion within the WTO and 
under the different subsidiary bodies. In his delegation's view, the Moratorium was of a cross -cutting 
nature, no t a purely "goods" issue, and discussions at the C TS could help to enhance understanding 
of its scope and implications. He echoed Nigeria's statement in the sense that discussions at the 
WTO, regardless of their form, should lead to a win -win situation. Ch ina had been sharing information 
on its e -commerce practices and domestic regulatory framework in the Council and would continue 
doing so in 2019 .    
5.18.   The representative  of Australia  wished to clarify, for the record, that her delegation had stated 
its posi tion on the matter at the General Council. As to the C TS, her delegation looked forward to 
continuing sharing information on domestic regulatory regimes and challenges faced by Members in 
e-commerce. Australia stood ready to share information on what it wa s doing domestically and 
abroad to address the digital divide, as well as the challenges faced.   
5.19.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made and said that the 
Council would revert to that agenda item at its next meeting.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.20.   It was so agreed . 
5.21.   Before moving to agenda item F, the Chairman  recalled that the Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce (document WT/L/1032) instruct ed the 
General Council to hold periodic reviews on work under the W ork Programme, based on the reports 
submitted by the relevant WTO bodies. The next such review was scheduled for 12 -13 December . 
Therefore, in line with past practice, he would be producing, under his own responsibility, a 
Chairman's Report to the General Council of the discussions the CTS had had under the Work 
Programme,  in October  and at that meeting. The report would be purely factual, reflecting the 
essence of Members' deliberations.  
5.22.   It was so agreed . 
6  ITEM F: UPDATE OF THE SECRET ARIAT BACKGROUND NOT E ON MODE  4 – REQUESTED  
BY INDIA  
6.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at the Council 's previous  meeting, the delegation of India had  
reiterated its request that the Secretariat Background Note on mode 4, contained in d ocument 
S/C/W/301, be updated. Australia had  indicated that there might be merit in the Secretariat also 
updating the other two modal papers, on modes 1&2 and on mode  3, while the United States had 
proposed that, instead of three separate papers in isolation, the Secretariat be tasked with the 
preparation  of a Note that would consider all the modes together, with an emphasis specifical ly on 
their interrelationship. He had  encouraged the delegations concer ned to consult each other, and he 
had also met with them, to see what might be done to satisfy the diff erent wishes expressed in 
terms of Secretariat work.  
6.2.  The representative of  India wished to reiterate its longstanding request to the Secretariat to 
update its Background Note on Mode 4 ( document S/C/W/301, dated 15 September 2009 ). In 
response to India 's request, Australia had  suggested that the Secretariat Background Notes in all 
modes should be updated, not just in mode 4, while t he United States had stated that , instead of 
three separate papers, a more practical contribution would be to consider all t he modes together in 
one paper, with an emphasis on intermodal linkages.  
6.3.  Following the previous meeting in October, the representative had met separately with the 
Chairman and with the US  and Australian delegates. She had clarified her delegation 's positi on that , 
while the issue of inter -modal linkages was useful, this should not substitute t he request to update 
all modal Background N otes by the Secretariat. The rationale was that request ing only one pa per on 
inter-modal linkages would be akin to  prejudgin g the way modern business  was being done. The 
proposed Secretariat paper  on inter modal linkages could of course, after detailed study and 
assessment, conclude that the modes had  lost their relevance and that it made sense only to talk of 
all modes in conj unction. However, to begin with, her delegation  strongly fel t that, while the issue 
of inter -modal linkages was indeed very useful, this should not substitute the request to update all 
modal B ackground Notes by the Secretariat. India's position was very transparent and 
accommodative:  the Secretariat should update all its Background Notes on modes 1 and 2, mode 3 
and mode 4. In addition , the Secretariat, as requested by the U nited States, should also prepare an 
additional N ote on inter -modal linkages.  
6.4.  It however appeared  that the United States had some reservations on some particularly 
important sections of the Secretariat  Background Note on m ode 4. Her delegation needed further 
clarity from the United States on what those reservations were. She would continue to discuss the 
matter bilaterally with the U nited States, and the Chair man might also like to use his good offices 
to help Members resolve the  issue.  
6.5.  The representative of the United States  appreciated the outreach from India on that  issue.  At 
the previous meeting in October , his delegation had expressed the view that a more p ractical 
contribution to Member s' understanding could be made through an approach that considered all 
modes together in one paper , with an empha sis on their interrelationship.  The United States believe d 
that the most helpful contribution the Secretariat could provide at that point was a single review of 
recent research and statistical work on services trade by mode of supply, intermodal linkages, and 
the implications of maintain ing sectoral limitations on one mode on trade in related modes, 
particularly at the firm level.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.6.  The US  suggestion was based on the view that considering modes of supply separately from 
each other was an artificial and outdated constraint that was inconsis tent with the way business 
worked, and that its proposal represented  an opportunity to move forward in a way that was truly 
useful and practical.  He had hoped that th e suggestion would move discussions  forward and allow 
Members  to consider new and interest ing developments in trade in services. However, he underst ood 
that some Members continue d to seek a specific paper on  mode 4, while other Members had  
suggested papers on the remaining modes 1,  2 and 3.  
6.7.  In an effort of compromise, t he United States could s upport tasking the Secretariat to produce 
new Notes on each of the four modes, either as one paper or as separate papers, provided there 
was new and relevant information that would contribute to Members ' understanding of the  various 
modes of supply.  As a p ractical matter, his delegation  believe d that one paper was more efficient, 
for it could present all the information that was inextricably relevant to all modes once, without the 
need to replicate it several times i n separate papers. The United States woul d not see this as an 
'updating ' of existing papers, but rather new information presented as the Secretariat saw fit. He 
did not believe that Members  needed to be overly proscriptive in their request.  
6.8.  In his delegation 's view, the previous paper produced in 2009, which replicated information 
included in a 1998 Note, should be set aside to allow the Secretariat to produce a  Note that reflected  
new information, thinking, and statistical updates without being wedded to a str ucture  and content  
the United States  believe d to be outdated and  prone to mischaracterization.  
6.9.  The representative o f China  registered his delegation 's support for  India's suggestion to update 
the Secreta riat Background Note on mode 4 and was confident that  Members  could approach the 
issue in a balanced manner. He wished to thank the United States for its flexibility. The US 
intervention had  been quite thought -provoking, but  he noted that GATS commitments and 
limitations were  still being  scheduled along moda l lines; as such,  technically it would be  quite difficult 
for the Secretariat to think out of the  modal  "box", as that was the reference framework for all 
Members;  however, any innovative ways  to look at developments in trade in services  would be very 
helpful. 
6.10.   The representative o f Turkey  expressed her delegation 's support for India 's proposal for 
Secretariat work on mode 4. In addition, the US suggestion for the Secretariat to undertake 
comprehensive work, covering all modes and highlighting their link wit h mode 4 , was acceptable to 
her delegation. She understood the proposal as an update of the existing Background Notes plus 
further work on the linkage of other modes of supply with mode 4.  She thanked the United States 
for its positive contribution  to the proposal .  
6.11.   Mode 4 was the most neglected and under -committed mode of supply . Her delegation was of 
the view that , regardless of available statistics,  the share of services trade was very  high; mode  4 
was indispensable  for other modes of supply and especially for mode 3. Therefore, in order to achieve 
a balanced liberalisation of trade in services in the WTO, mode 4 market access and disciplines 
should always be at the core of the Council 's agenda. To th at end, her dele gation believed that 
Secretariat work on mode 4 would be very instructive. She hoped the Council could finally reach a 
decision on that issue.  
6.12.   The representative o f Canada  thank ed both India and the United States for their  respective  
proposals. Canada was willing to consider any proposal , but would encourage Members  to explore 
horizontal initiatives that support ed trade in all four  modes of supply. Her delegation  believe d that 
updating the papers to reflect recent practices and contexts would  be useful for Members. She would 
appreciate if India could specify what areas of the Note it felt were most in need of updating , as th at 
information would be useful as Members  were considering the proposals.  
6.13.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  expressed his delegation 's support 
for India 's proposal,  especially  given the importance mode 4 had for developing countries.  
6.14.   The representative o f Nigeria  thanked  India and  the United States for their suggestion s. His 
delegation was supportive of the nee d for the Secretariat to updat e the Background Note on mode  4 
in respect to areas that were highlighted and where there should be  an emergin g consensus. This 
was in recognition of the fact that there was no doubt that mode 4 was the most neglected and S/C/M/137  
 
- 12 - 
 
  under-committed  mode of supply  and that its importance should not be overlooked . He hoped that 
Members could agree to the update of the Secretariat Note. 
6.15.   The representative o f Ecuador  reiterated his delegation 's support for the proposal by India.  
6.16.   The represent ative of the European Union  said that it was important to distinguish between 
the importance of a mode of supply and the need to update a document. If a document was not 
updated, this did not mean a mode of supply was not important for Members, and this sh ould not 
be the reason  to update a certain  Secretariat Note. He still failed to see exactly why an update of 
the Notes was necessary, but his delegation was ready to be flexible and could live with any option  
that discussed all modes of supply, either with an interlinkages paper, which could yield a richer 
discussion, or individual papers on all the modes. The EU could agree to any combination along those 
lines.  
6.17.   The Chairman expressed his appreciation to dele gations for the contacts and conversations 
they had held with each other and with him. He recalled that Canada had asked a question of India.  
6.18.   The representative of India said that her delegation had engaged with the United States  on 
the specific areas in t he existing m ode 4 Background Note that might be updated, and was not sure 
whether  Canada also had  some issues with her delegation 's request to update the Note . If that was 
the case, she would  also invite Canada for her next consultations with the United S tates on the issue, 
and was  also ready to engage bilaterally with Canada.   
6.19.   The Chairman  noted  that there ha d been a request for him to have further contacts  with 
delegations to see if Members could come to an agreement on the issue; he would indeed proceed  
in that manner . He then suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
6.20.   It was so agreed . 
7  ITEM G: MEASURES ADOPTED AND  UNDER DEVELOPMENT B Y CHINA RELATING TO ITS 
CYBERSECURITY LAW  
7.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at the October  meeting, under an item that had been placed on 
the Council 's agenda at the request of Japan and the United States, the United States had  introduced 
a communication titled "Measures adopted and under development by China related to its 
Cybersecurity Law – Questions to China ", contained in document S/C/W/378 dated 5  October 2018. 
The communication had not appear ed on the Council 's agenda for the October meeting, as it had 
been received a couple of days after the issuance of the airgram.   
7.2.  The representative o f the United States  said that, as Members might recall, at the previous 
Council meeting in October, his delegation had introduced document S/C/W/378, containing a series 
of questions the United States had posed to China regarding its Cybersecurity Law and various 
implementing measures connected with that and other Laws, including in regard to China 's proposed 
restrictions on cross -border transfers of information and data localization requirements.   
7.3.  That set of questions was part of an ongoing effort to seek  additional information and clarity 
about new and proposed measures by China which the United States believe d could have a 
significant adverse effect  on trade in services, including services supplied through a commercial 
presence and on a cross -border basi s.  
7.4.  Because the document had not been  circulated until after the close of the October meeting 
agenda, his delegation had  requested that it be included on the agenda  of that meeting , in the hope 
and expectation that it might receive more meaningful response s from the delegation of China to its 
questions, and to the concerns and questions raised by other WTO Members at that October meeting.  
7.5.  His delegation had  taken note of the preliminary responses that China had provided during the 
October meeting, and of China's interest in and questions relating to US policies and practices, 
including in regard to cross -border data flows and data localization. He wanted to briefly respond to 
those questions and comments first, before turning over the floor to other Members which might  
wish to express similar concerns and to the delegation of China for their responses.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 13 - 
 
  7.6.  With respect to China 's response to the United States  questioning the need to invoke consent 
for any personal information leaving China, his delegation believe d that China ha d fundamentally 
misunderstood the point. The United States recognize d, and fully support ed consent as a core 
element of any regime seeking t o promote and protect privacy. For example, his delegation would 
support requirements requirin g consent before personal data could be sold to third parties, or 
otherwise transferred for purposes the data subject did not authorize.  
7.7.  What China was proposing in its draft measures, however, was something entirely different:  
even where an individual ge nerally consent ed, implicitly or explicitly, that a third -party m ight process 
his or her data, including  for targeted advertising, or for more efficient transmission or storage (e.g. 
use of cloud storage or caching services ), there would appear to be no ba sis for another layer of 
consent based solely on the fact that d ata happened  to be transferred outside of China.  That 
appear ed to be fundamentally discriminatory.  
7.8.  If one took, f or example , other rob ust privacy regimes like the EU 's, which set conditions f or 
any external transfer , that regime did not require an additional layer of consent simply because a 
transfer was external. There were many less trade -restrictive mechanisms that a country could  
employ, and his delegation urged China to consider such opti ons. 
7.9.  Finally, while  not directly relevant to the U S submission, China had taken  the opportunity to 
make a number of inaccurate assertions about elements of US policy and regulation that he wished 
to briefly address.  
7.10.   In its intervention, China had  raised t he CLOUD Act as possibly being inconsistent with a 
policy promoting the free flow of information.  The CLOUD Act placed  no constraints on data transfers; 
rather, it sought  to facilitate the use of global storage and processing resources, by enhancing 
bilate ral cooperation among law enforcement agencies.   
7.11.   In addition , on the CLOUD Act, China had asked  "what will happen if a communications -
service provider faces potential conflicting legal obligations when a foreign government orders 
disclosure of electronic d ata that United States law may prohibit providers from disclosing? Moreover, 
who will take the responsibility of protecting consumers ' privacy and personal data security? ". The 
CLOUD Act contain ed an explicit provision allowing companies to demonstrate that complying with 
CLOUD Act provisions would put them in conflict with a foreign law, and, based on comity, they 
could thus be exempt from certain requirements. (CLOUD Act § 103(b)) . 
7.12.   China had  questioned recently -passed legislation, FIRRMA and ECRA, asking whether "the 
U.S. is beginning to favor technology and data localization, thus restricting the free flow of data? 
How will the U.S. reconcile the enlarged data jurisdiction of CFIUS with the exist ing data transmission 
models? ". Unlike China 's Cybersecurity Law and relat ed draft implementing decrees, which 
purport ed to constrain any data flows "affecting the publ ic interest ", both tho se US  laws we re 
narrowly tailored to address specific n ational sec urity concerns and did  not impose general 
localization policies. The concept of "emerging and foundational technologies " in ECRA that might  be 
subject to additional export controls would  be subject to a thorough review and public comment 
period in which an y country could  participate.   
7.13.   CFIUS ha d always had the ability to seek mitigation terms, including those related to 
protection of sensitiv e data, on a case -by-case basis,  and typically on a voluntary, negotiated basis 
with parties to a transaction. CFIUS o nly sought  such terms where the specific national security 
concerns presented by a transaction clearly warrant ed it.  
7.14.   Even with FIRRMA 's expanded jurisdictional scope, CFIUS reviews would  impact only a 
relatively narrow class of investments that met specif ic criteria laid out in FIRRMA and subsequent 
rule-making , and that present ed legitima te national security concerns. To be clear, FIRRMA provide d 
the authority to review certain transactions involving certain sensitive personal data that might  have 
nationa l security implications, but the legislation did not require or otherwise endorse data 
localization.  
7.15.   China had also mentioned the U S Cybers ecurity Enhancement Act of 2014. In that regard, his 
delegation  would note that that important legislation reinforced an existing Executive Order which 
charged the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to facilitate and support S/C/M/137  
 
- 14 - 
 
  the development of a voluntary, consensus -based, industry -led set of standards and proc edures to 
cost-effectively reduce cyber ris ks to critical infrastructure. Accordingly, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology  had developed and prod uced the Cybersecurity Framework,  consisting of 
standards, guidelines and practices to promote t he protection of critical infrastructure. The United 
States welcome d China 's interest in the US  Cybersecurity Framework, and the risk -management 
framework approach. The United States took note of that  interest and would  consider ways to sha re 
that important work with the Council  at future meetings.  
7.16.   He hoped that those responses were helpful in establishing a context for the US  questions 
and also for the US  ongoing concerns about certain measures in place a nd under development in 
China. His delegat ion would welcome a further discussion and experience and information sharing 
among Members regarding effective approaches to addressing chall enges related to ensuring 
cyber security.   
7.17.   However, at that meeting,  he would focus on continuing the exchange of i nformation as set 
out in the US  written questions. In summary, the US  key questions relate d to:  
• Prohibitions or restrictions on the undefin ed category of "important data ". How and by 
whom would  "important information " be defined? Who would decide what dat a was "important 
for the  nation "?  
• The category of "personal information of individuals " and a requirement for explicit consent 
by the owner of the information before any cross -border transfer could  take place;  
• The proposed overall scope of any security as sessment, including the d efinition of "network 
operators ".   
7.18.   He noted that his delegation 's intervention from the October meeting include d additional 
details. He hoped that China wa s in a position to respond at that meeting .  
7.19.   The representative of Japan  wished to express his delegation 's gratitude to the U nited States 
for registering th at agenda  item. Japan also thank ed China for responding to bilateral consultations 
in Geneva and in Beijing on that issue. Japan  hoped to find mutually acceptable solutions through 
close communication, including exchanges of views in the CTS . 
7.20.   Following up from the pre vious meeting, Japan appreciated  the opportunity to reiterate its 
concerns on China 's recent measures related to cybersecurity. At the previ ous meeting held in 
October, Japan had requested clear explanations about the following three important points:  
a. consistency with the GATS of the obligation on foreign operators of critical information 
infrastructure to store specific data domestically;  
b. consistency with the GATS of the obligation to conduc t security assessments on cross -
border data transfers; and  
c. ambiguous definition s of legal terms such as "network operators ", "critical data",  and 
"critical information infrastructure".  
7.21.   While China had  mentioned at the meeting that its measures were based on the right to 
regulate in order to meet national policy objectives, its explanation had been neither adequate nor 
clear from both the legal and logical perspectives. Therefore,  Japan  expect ed further expl anations 
from China.  
7.22.   In addition, on 2 November, Japan had  submitted detailed comments on the "Block Chain 
Information Service Management Rule " to the Ministry concerned. At the previous meeting, China 
had mentioned that it was in the process of preparing  relevant domestic laws and regulations. In 
that regard, Japan expect ed that China would  provide reasonable advance notice and opportunities 
for all stakeholders to comment on the new draft implementing measures so as not to have a 
negative influence on th e business environment.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 15 - 
 
  7.23.   In conclusion, Japan expected China to g ive full consideration to Japan 's aforementioned 
concerns and requests in its process of drafting the relevant regulations. Japan also call ed upon 
China to provide clear and sincere response s to the concerns that Japan had  mentioned at that 
meeting  and on other occasions.   
7.24.   The representative of the European Union  expressed his delegation's support to the 
interventions made by Japan and the United States. The European Union had explained its concerns 
regarding the cybersecurity measures of China at previous CTS meetings, in particular in relation to 
the data localisation requirements and data flow restriction s imposed by the Cybersecurity L aw and 
its implementing measures.  
7.25.   The E uropean Union consider ed that because of th ose requirements and the legal uncertainty 
surrounding their implementation, foreign companies operating in China could find themselves in a 
de facto  less competitive situation compared to domestic operators, incl uding in sectors where China 
had made international commitments.  Therefore, the European Union  wished to invite China to 
provide further information on the concerns raised by Japan, the United States and other Members. 
His delegation  would also appreciate China's update on the process, including the possible revision 
of the proposed implementing measures and any next steps.  
7.26.   The representative of New Zealand  referred  to the statement his delegation had made at the 
previous  meeting, including that it consider ed the scope of the C ybersecurity Law and its 
implementing measures to remain unclear. In particular, New Zealand  sought clarity from China 
regarding the data subject to security assessment; assurance that the national testing process would  
treat foreign and domestic companies equally; further inf ormation about how China intended  to 
proceed with implementation of the Law, and how China intend ed to define certain key terms in the 
implementing measures. New Zealand reiterate d its request that China ensure that all measures 
were implemented consistent ly with the obligations contained in the GATS.  
7.27.   New Zealand therefore remained  interested in China 's responses to the questions posed by 
Members, and in particular when the final implementing regula tions would  come into force , to ensure 
that business people were able to understand the requirements they would  face when the 
requirements enter into force.  
7.28.   The representative of Canada  also reiterate d her delegation 's concerns with China 's 
cybersecurity m easures as mentioned in past meetings, particularly in relation to local storage of 
data, restrictions on cross -border data flows, and the challenges foreign technology companies face d 
in competing for procurement contract s. Canada ha d been engaging bilate rally on th ose issues. She 
echoed the  concerns raised by the U nited States and Japan a nd would be interested in China 's 
responses to the questions  those two delegations had  submitted.  
7.29.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thank ed Japan and the United States for having raised 
the issue again in the Council  and also wished to echo other Members ' statements in th at regard.  
According to his delegation 's previous technical reports on cyberspace trade barriers, Internet 
communications a ssociated with an e -commerce transaction could  be separated into several parts: 
searching, comparing competing items, placement of order, electronic payments, delivery and 
logistics, custom checks, reaching the customer.  That was why Chinese Taipei  conside red that 
Member s' measures on international transfer s of information would affect  cross-border business 
operations and MSMEs ' equal opportunity for market access.  His delegation was happy to cont inue 
to discuss related issues at  the future meetings.  
7.30.   The re presentative of China  thank ed all the previous speakers for their interventions and 
questions, and especially  thank ed the U nited States for their substantial responses to China 's 
questions on certain US domestic measures related to cybersecurity.  
7.31.   Since the previous  year, certain Members had  repeatedly raised their concerns on China 's 
cybersecurity measures at the Council . Despite his delegation's  comprehensive and detailed 
clarification s at earlier meetings, China was disappointed to see that tho se issues  were still on the 
agenda and was perplexed that the same questions to which China ha d already given  detailed 
responses , were being raised time and again . If the relevant Members had read the minutes of those 
meetings, he was sure that they would have foun d the answers to many of the questions they had 
raised.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 16 - 
 
  7.32.   That being said, China was willing to prov ide answers to the US questions  again  at that 
meeting . In the meantime, the representative also hope d that the U nited States could reply to the 
questions fro m China on certain US measures.  
7.33.   Before going into detail , he wished to address something of a more general nature, namely  
the great challenge all  Members  faced in ensuring cyber security. The issues Members were  
encountering today were complex and unpreced ented, as the Facebook data leakage and the 
Cambridge Analytica scandal had shown. Tho se kinds of incidents had happened and might happen 
again, with even larger political, societal and economic repercussions. It was against th at 
background that many WTO M embers , including China,  were developing their domesti c regulatory 
framework on cyber security. In China 's case, the implementation of the domestic regulation was still 
at a preliminary stage and many implementing measures were in the drafting process ; his delegation 
would contin ue to cooperate with other WTO M embers to improve its regulatory framework in a 
progressive manner.  
7.34.   He then provid ed detailed  answers , in the sequence of the questions contained in the US 
communication.  Regarding question (a), China was still in the process of drafting the imp lementing 
measures of the Cybersecurity L aw. During that process, Chinese authorities had  solicited 
suggestions widely from governments, associ ations and enterprises of many M embers. China would  
continue to welco me suggestions from various interested parties, with a view to designing its policies 
in a more scientific and reasonable manner, and creating an orderly market environment for both 
domestic and foreign enterprises.  
7.35.   Regarding question (b), China was still in the process of drafting relevant implementing 
measures, such as the 'Measures on the Security Assessment of Cross -Border Transfer of Personal 
Information and Important Data ' and the 'Regulations for the Security Protection of Critical 
Information Infra structure '. China would  take into account suggestions from various interested 
parties during the relevant legislative work. China was also w illing to cooperate with other M embers 
with a view to protecting national cybersecurity and societal public interest s.  
7.36.   Regarding question s (c) and (d), China was still drafting the implementing measures of the 
Cyber security Law, which would  provide more detailed definition and scope of relevant concepts 
such as "important data ". When determining the scope of "important  data", the complexity of data 
in different sectors also had to be taken into account. The scoping of an important concept could not 
be done overnight, and it was necessary to improve and adjust the scope during the implementation. 
China suggest ed that int erested M embers continue to provide suggestions and comments to relevant 
authorities in Beijing.  
7.37.   Regarding question (e), according to the definiti on in Article 76.3 of the Cybers ecurity Law, 
"internet operators " referred  to all the owners or managers of a network or the providers of a 
network service.  
7.38.   Regarding question (f), the Cybers ecurity Law and National Security Strategy on Cyber 
Security provide d the definition and scope of "critical information infrastructure ", describing 
important sectors and area s identified as "critical information infrastructure " based on China 's 
practical needs. This practice follow ed the examples of the United States  and some oth er Members. 
China was still improving and detailing relevant standards to define "critical information 
infrastructure ", and it would be improper to assume that the final definition would  have a negative 
impact on enterprises.  
7.39.   Regarding question (g), the National Information Security Standardization Technical 
Committee was now soliciting opinion s from all interested parties, with a view to improving the 
'Measures on the Security Control of Information Security Technology and Critical Information 
Infrastructure '. In the latest draft, the clause on personal data protection had been  revised as 
follows: "Operators of critical information infrastructure shall establish normative system to protect 
personal information, so as to guarantee that the collection, storage, use and transmission of 
personal data is in line with relevant national standards such as the Information Security 
Technology —Personal Information Security Specification. " Security assessment was a common risk 
management measure widely used by the industry. Details of the planned security assessment 
measures could  be found in the 'Informatio n Security Technology — Guidelines for Cross -Border 
Data Transfer Security Assessment ', which was now in the drafting process.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.40.   Regarding question (h) on personal data protection, there were detailed requirements in the 
'Measures on the Security Assessment of Cross -Border Transfer of Personal Information and 
Important Data '. To further modify the regulatory measures on cross -border flow of personal data, 
China would  take into account international guidelines such as the A PEC Cross -Border Privacy Rules 
System , as well as suggestions from various interested parties.  
7.41.   Regarding question (i), during the drafting process of the 'Measures for the Management of 
Scientific Data ', relevant authorities  had paid visits to both domestic and foreign organizations, and 
had held several symposi a to solicit opinions from various inter ested parties. The Measure s took into 
account international experiences and best practices, with a view to further enhancing and 
normalizing the administration of scientific data, and guaranteein g data security while achieving 
higher lev els of openness and sharedness. The representative also point ed out that Article 3 of the 
Measure s stipulate d that "The Measures apply to activities relating to scientific data … which are 
carried out with the supp ort of the government 's budget funds ". China did  not agr ee with the US 
conclusion  that "the Measures will restrict cross -border transfers of this type of data ".  
7.42.   He also  drew attention to the fact that,  according to the statistics of the 2018 Cost of a Data 
Breach Study by IBM Security and Ponemon Institute, the costs of data breach were on the rise over 
previous years. Enterprises that faced highest data breach costs were in the U nited States. China 
believed that enhanced cybersecurity measures we re essential for protecting national security, public 
interests and the rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and the Chinese  measures 
concerned were  in line with relevant WTO rules.  
7.43.   Having provided answers to the questions from the U nited States, China also wishe d to 
reiterate its concerns with relevant US measures, which his delegation  had raised at the Council 
meeting  in October and would like to seek f urther clarification s from the United  States . 
7.44.   First, on the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (the CLOUD Act) , which allow ed the 
US government to get access to the data from overseas branches or subsidiaries of US enterprises. 
Sectio n II of the CLOUD Act emphasized  that "timely acces s to electronic data held by 
Communications -service providers is an essential component of government efforts to protect public 
safety and combat serious crime, including terrorism ". Did this mean that the U nited States  
recognized  the n ecessity of regulati on on cyberinformation, and recognized  that cross -border data 
flow was not without conditions, and had to  be subject to regulation?  
7.45.   Second , the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA) expand ed the power 
of the Committee on Foreign Investm ent in the United States (CFIUS), and any investment involving 
critical infrastructure, critical technologies and sensitive personal data would be subject to CFIUS 
review. China  urged the U nited States to clarify how it would  carry out reviews on "critical  
infrastructure, critical technologies and sensitive personal data " and, in particular, if this include d 
security reviews on cross border data flow s. 
7.46.   Third, the Export C ontrol Reform Act (ECRA) expanded  US export control s on "emerging and 
foundational technologies ". On 19 November 2018, the US Department of Commerce had issued an 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking on export control s on 14 emerging technologies, including 
AI and machine learning technology, advanced computing technology and data analy tics technology. 
As components using th ose technologies would  be needed in the process of making intermediary 
and final products  and g iven the Global Value Chain model of manufacturing nowadays, tho se export 
restrictions would  in effect lead to localizatio n of equipment and related services. Therefore, China  
wished  to ask the United States to clarify how they wou ld rec oncile tho se restrictions with the 
purported purpose of creating a level playing field for both domestic and foreign technologies and 
busines ses. 
7.47.   Last but not least, the US Presidential Policy Directive PPD -21 in 2013  had defined "critical 
infrastructure " as "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that 
the incapacity or destruction of such systems and ass ets would have a debilitating impact on 
security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those 
matters ". While accusing the definitions in China's regulatory measures as "broad and vague ", and 
"extending well be yond traditional national definitions of CII ", would the US please clarify how it 
ensure d tho se definitions in its domestic regulations were "specific and clear ", and "within the 
traditional national definitions of critical infrastructure "? S/C/M/137  
 
- 18 - 
 
  7.48.   He hope d that h is delegation's  questions would be answered by the U nited States in a clear 
and detailed manner.   
7.49.   The representative of the  United States  noted his delegation's  appreciation to Chi na for its 
detailed responses . He wished to take a step back to note that what his delegation was trying and  
had been trying to do over the course of many years was to engage in a process of questions and 
answers , so as to understand how tho se draft measures were going to affect US and other 
international service suppliers.   
7.50.   It was a  little bit frustrating to be met with such antagonism; questions had been presented  
in writing, they were not new and  they had been posed over and  over. Additionally, a number of the 
responses  indicated that the measures were still in proce ss an d that comments we re welcome ; 
however, the key was what happened to the comments  provided , and what engagement the United 
States  got from Chinese agencies on th ose comments . All Members would  acknowledge  that in the 
WTO an openness to comment was an important aspect , but that taking comments  into account and 
responding to the concerns  expressed was  actually the fundamental underpinning of what a 
responsible Member of the multilateral system should be doing . Just taking note of comment s and 
putting  them aside was not really what was being asked for . There was actually a need for those 
comments to be taken into account . He appreciate d the responses  provided  and underst ood that 
most of the measures  at issue we re in process ; the United States was trying to be constructive 
partners in making sure that whatever came out of the Chinese system worked  for American 
businesses .  
7.51.   He also ask ed that Members do not engage  in creating false equivalences . His delegation had 
asked questions about particular draft me asures, and if China wanted  to ask about  ten or five-year 
old US measures it could certainly do so , but not under that  agenda  item. China could ask its own 
questions under an item it could add to the Council's agenda, and his delegation would be happy to 
engage.  However, creating a false equivalence between the US  questions on China's  regime and 
finding peculiarities in the US  regime  and imply ing that the two  were somehow  comparable  was not  
a productive way forward . His delegation had tried to answer the q uestions  posed  with respect to 
the Cloud Act , FIRRMA and ECRA as well as the impact on  CFIUS, and welcome d an on -going bilateral 
dialogue if there were particular questions . However, that did not  change the fundamental nature of 
the US  specific request , based on specific stakeholder interest , in ensuring that the market access 
obligations of China were fully met with respect to US service suppliers. His delegation appreciate d 
the responses  provided  by China and hoped  that they could exchange their respective written  
statements , which  were both  quite detailed , and take the issue forward  in a positive and productive 
way.  
7.52.   The representative of China  said that it was necessa ry to respond to the US briefly.  There 
were no har d feeling s, China appreciate d the US effort s in trying to answer his delegation's questions 
in a detailed manner, and w ould continue to answer US questions in a detailed manner as things 
develop ed. However, some of the requests being put forward  by the U nited States and other 
Members were just impossible to meet. WTO Members ha d the obligation to make their legislative 
drafting process transparent and open to comments  from stakeholders , but he had never  seen a 
WTO Member detailing  how it was taking  comments into considerat ion during the drafting process. 
He did not know whether the United States, Japan, the  European Union, Canada or any other Member  
had done so . The questions he  had asked regarding many of th e US domestic laws were motivated 
by the fact that  they were impacting trade in goods and services tremendously , and he might have 
missed mentioning many very important US domestic measures . He wished to know how , during 
the drafting process of those domestic measures, the United States had acted and how it had  treated  
and react ed to comments made by both domestic and foreign stakeholders . He would be extremely 
happy to see any Member do that kind of work in the Council or any subsidiary bod y, as that would 
be a shining example for all Members .  
7.53.   The representative of the  United Stat es just wanted to acknowledge  that his delegation had 
asked specific questions of China and that those were the questions on the table . China's  intervention 
had referenced a proposed rule -making process in the United States, and those processes were open 
and transparent in the United States; he would be happy to have a separate conversation on the 
transparency effort s in the United States, as his delegation was doing in many C ommittees . 
However, he wished to underscore that that item was specific to his delegation's  concerns ; if China 
had other, broader concerns,  those should be  articulate d in a separate channel, but the focus that 
his delegation had put on that  particular item  should not be diluted or lost .  S/C/M/137  
 
- 19 - 
 
  7.54.   The representative of China  reaffirmed that  his delegation was willing to discuss tho se issues , 
both within the Council , multilaterally or bilaterally , with any interested Member.  
7.55.   The Chairman  thanked Members  for their comments, questions and answers. He urged 
delegations to continue to engage in  contact s amongst themselves, and not exclusively at the 
Council, which he underst ood had indeed been the case thus  far. Such exchanges helped Members 
gain a better understanding of each other's  positions,  view, legislation s and relevant processes. 
Transparency and an improved understanding were an essential part of the work of the WTO . As to 
the questions that had  come up at that meeting , he repeated the request from several Members 
that the answers to th ose questions be shared with the Membership . He suggested that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
7.56.   It was so agreed . 
8  ITEM H: CYBERSECURITY MEASUR ES OF VIET NAM  – REQUESTED BY JAPA N AND THE 
UNITED STATES  
8.1.  The Chairman  said that th e item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the request 
of the delegations of Japan and the United States.   
8.2.  The representative o f Japan  said that his delegation placed great emphasis on the  issue, and 
that Japan and the United States ha d once agai n registered that  agenda  item. In addition to the 
exchange at Council  meetings, Japan was grateful that Viet Nam  was responding to bilateral talks. 
In addit ion to raising questions in the Council , his delegation hoped to find solutions that would  be 
acceptable to both sides through close communication between Geneva and each Capital.  
8.3.  In continuation from the previous meeting, Japan wished to  again raise concerns that Viet Nam  
was introducing cybersecurity -related laws and regulations without maki ng essential improvements, 
despite Japan 's repeated expression s of its concerns. Japan also wished to take th at opportunity to 
request Viet Nam 's confirmation that the obligation to locally store data provided in Article 26.3 of 
the Cybersecurity Law did not restrain cross -border data transfers.  
8.4.  His delegation understoo d that the Vietnamese government was inviting public comments on 
the "Decree of detailing certain articles of the Law on Cybersecurity " and Japan appreciated  the 
opportunity to provide comme nts from the perspective of transparency. Japan was currently working 
on its full comments, but would take the  opportunity to point out, in advance, that while the deadline  
for submitting comments had  been set as 2 January 2019, the Law provide d that it would take effect 
on 1 January 2019. In that regard, his delegation seriously questioned  whether that could be an 
appropriate procedure. Japan request ed that, by appropriately incorporating its comments and 
requests, Viet Nam  develop the draft laws and regul ations in such a manner that they would  not 
unfairly hinder the level -playing field of the business environment in Viet Nam  and were fully 
consistent with  the GATS.  
8.5.  The representative of the United States  said that, with regard  to the previous agenda item, he 
hoped that that item might be instructive  on a more open system to accommodate comments.  
8.6.  Like Japan, the United States note d that, since the previous  CTS meeting in October, Viet Nam 
had posted a draft decree implementing its Law on Cybersecurity for public comment. His delegation 
thanked  Viet Nam  for responding to WTO Members ' requests for a transparent consultation process 
by providing for a full 60-day notice and comment period on the draft regulations.  The United States 
also noted the important  and significant consultations on-going  with Hanoi  and appreciated the 
openness they had shown.  
8.7.  Like Japan, the United States was also submitting comments to the Government of Viet Nam  
on the draft decree. His delegation knew that a nu mber of US and other foreign businesses were 
doing the same, and would encourage other WTO Members to engage with Viet Nam  as well , to 
ensure that the final decree was the lea st trade -restrictive possible. As Japan had noted, Viet Nam 's 
public comment peri od end ed on 2 January.  The United States  urged Viet Nam  to seriou sly consider 
and incorporate th e comments received before finalizing the decree, and in so doing to continue to 
narrow the scope of the Law to ensure that its implementation did not disrupt international trade in 
services.  S/C/M/137  
 
- 20 - 
 
  8.8.  The US consultations had shown Viet Nam tak ing comments on board and reflecting those 
comments in subsequent iterations of the draft, which offered an excellent example.  Although the 
United States might not be entirely  satisfied with the changes made, it was comforting to know that 
the US comments had been taken into account.  
8.9.  As his delegation had said previously, service suppliers in data -intensive sectors depend ed on 
cross-border data flows and often rel ied on large-scale data centres  in a limited number of locations 
that could not  economically be replicated in every market they serve d. As a general matter, they 
should not be subject to data localization and local presence requirements.   
8.10.   Like Japan, the United States  also note d that the Law on Cybersecurity went into effect on 
1 January, before the end  of the public comment period. His delegation asked Viet Nam  to delay 
implementation of certain provisions of the Law in order to provide sufficient time for comme nts to 
be considered  and the decree to be finalized.  
8.11.   Once again, the United States  wished to thank Viet Nam  for publishing the draft measures 
and for taking into account the serious concerns raised by WTO Members.  
8.12.   The representative of New Zealand  referred to his delegation's previous statement on 
concerns regarding the potential effects of Viet Nam 's Law on C ybersecurity, including on the 
importance of tho se regulations remaining consistent with Viet Nam 's GATS commitments.  
8.13.   New Zealand  welcome d Viet Nam 's decision to provide a 60 -day consultation period on the 
draft regulations implementing its Law on C ybersecurity. His delegation  encourage d Viet Nam to 
seriously consider comments submitted during th e process ; he hoped that this enabled  Viet Nam to 
better reflect the concerns of business, ensuring that the requirements o f the Law on C ybersecurity 
did not unduly act as a barrier to foreign service suppliers, putting such businesses at potential 
commercial disadvantage.  
8.14.   The representative of the European Union said that a t the previous CTS meeting, his 
delegation had expressed its strong concerns as to the negative impact the Cybersecurity Law of 
Viet Nam could have o n foreign -owned enterprises. Th ose concerns were primarily related to the 
data localisation an d local presence requirements in the Law.  
8.15.   Since that meeting, Viet Nam ha d issued for public consultation a draft decree implementing 
the Cybersecurity Law. The EU appreciate d the opportunity to comment on the draft decree  and 
would engage constructively with the Vietnamese authorities in the consultation process.  
8.16.   He also hope d that the EU's comments would be given serious consideration by the 
Vietnamese authorities and that they would help ensure that the new legislative framework provide d 
a level playing field for foreign -owned enterprises, in line with Viet Nam 's international commitments.  
Accordingly, the European Union support ed the interventions made by Japan and the United States.  
8.17.   The representative of Canada  also reiterate d her deleg ation's concerns with Viet Nam 's 
cybersecurity measures as mentioned at previous  meetings. Canada welcomed the new public 
consultations and was looking forward to participat ing.  
8.18.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  echoed his delegation 's previous interve ntions . Chinese 
Taipei  continue d to attach great importance to th at issue, and also appreciate d Viet Nam's  effort s to 
improve its draft data security laws. Chinese Taipei hoped that Viet Nam would take into 
consideration Members ' concer ns and try to reduce  the burden  for foreign investors.   
8.19.   The representative of Viet Nam  took the opportunity to respond to the United S tates, Japan 
and other Members. He also thank ed them for sharing their views with regard to Viet Nam 's draft 
regulation to implement the Law on Cybersecurity and took note of their observations.  
8.20.   At the previous  Council meeting in October, his delegation had  explained that Viet Nam 's 
National Assembly had carefully considered all comments prior to adopting  the Law  at issue . He 
reiterated that the  adoption of the Law was based on the broad national policy objective of ensuring 
cybersecurity while adhering to Viet Nam 's WTO commitments. Viet Nam 's process of law and S/C/M/137  
 
- 21 - 
 
  regulation formulation and adoption was alw ays open and transparent, as had been acknowledged 
by Members ' interventions.  
8.21.   With regard to the draft Decree of the Government of Viet Nam to implement certain articles 
of the Law  on Cybersecurity, the concerns raised had been address ed. The published dra ft dated 31  
October 2018 was already the second version  of the Decree , whose scope ha d been narrowed to a 
national security focu s. For example, Article 26 listed  four conditions leading up to security concerns, 
in particular dissemination of defamatory inf ormation that might  cause economic management 
disturbance, social disorder and jeopardize nati onal security. Only when all tho se conditions were 
met, the businesses involved were required  to store data and maintain branches or representative 
offices in Viet Nam. The competence to make such a demand belong ed to only the Minister of Public 
Security, who was the highest -ranking Government official in charge. There was also a sunset period 
of 12 months for businesses to comply with such  a demand. It was ther efore apparent  that the  draft 
had been carefully designed to avoid  affecting  to the extent possible normal business operations.  
8.22.   In terms of enforcement, the Law would  enter into force as of 1 January 2019. For the specific 
articles that require d the regula tion of the Government, such as data localization, enforcement would  
happen when the relevant regulation bec ame effective, upon the completion of all necessary  
procedures to be followed by the Government of Viet Nam.  
8.23.   His delegation was  ready to engage with  Members to take note of their further  concerns and 
provide explanations if requested.  
8.24.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
8.25.   It was so agreed . 
9  ITEM I: OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  The Chairman  offered the floor to the Secretariat for a brief report on the accessibility of the 
CPC Provisional from the website of the UN Statistical Division.  
9.2.  A representative of the Secretariat  recalled that the website of the United Nations Statis tics 
Division (UNSD) no longer provided  access to the Provisional Version of the Central Product 
Classification or the correspondence table s between the Provisional CPC and later classifications. 
Upon New Zealand 's request, the Secretariat ha d been in regular and repeated co ntact with UNSD 
on th at issue, and was happy to report that, althou gh not totally solved, there had  been some 
positive development s. Specifically, the correspondence tables between the various CPC versions 
were once again av ailable from the UNSD website. The CP C Provisional itself was not yet online, but 
UNSD had  informed the Secretariat  that it was working on that issue  and that the problem should 
be fixed soon. To provide a stop -gap solution to delegations , the Secretariat would in the meantime 
post on the WTO  Members ' website the PDF files of the CPC Provisional, in  the three official 
languages. Although a PDF file was not ideal, the Secretariat hoped that it would , nevertheless, be 
of help to delegations until the CPC Provisional was again made available on t he UNSD website. The 
Secretariat would also continue to engage with UNSD, to convey the importance and urgency of the 
issue, and aim ed to report back to Members at the following  meeting of the Council.  
9.3.  The representative of New Zealand  thanked the Secreta riat for its efforts and keeping 
stakeholder s updated on that issue.  
9.4.  The Chairman  said that the Council would take note of the statements made.  
9.5.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________