RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/123  
 
16 June 2015  
(15-3096) Page: 1/14   
Council for Trade in Services    
 
 REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 3 JUNE 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 3 June 2015, chaired by Ambassador 
Eyjólfsson (Iceland). The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/CTS/3. 
The agenda was adopted. 
1  ITEM A - NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  ARTICLES III:3 AND V:7 OF THE GATS 
1.1.  With regard to the notifications made pu rsuant to GATS Article III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman drew the Council's attention to the communications received, respectively, from Switzerland (in document S/C/N/793), the European Union (S/C/N/794 to 802) and Honduras (S/C/N/803 to 804). 
1.2.  The representative of India thanked the thre e delegations for their respective notifications. 
She said that the notifications by Switzerland and the European Union were important and relevant 
and thus requested that they be kept on the Council's agenda; she reserved her delegation's right 
to revert to them. She also asked Switzerland to make available in English a copy of the measure 
they had notified.  
1.3.  The Chairman said that the Council would ta ke note of the notifications and the statement 
made by India, and revert to the notifications by  Switzerland and the European Union at its next 
meeting.  
1.4.  It was so agreed.  
1.5.  Moving on to the notifications made purs uant to GATS Article V:7, the Chairman drew 
Members' attention to the communications received from China and Hong Kong, China 
(S/C/N/264/Add.8); and China and Macao, China (S/C/N/265/Add.8). He proposed that the Council take note of the notifications and refer the agreements notified to the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements for consideration. 
1.6.  It was so agreed.  
2  ITEM B – OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE LDC SERVICES WAIVER 
2.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting in March, under a sub-item to that agenda 
item, the Council had conducted an assessment of the results of the LDC services waiver High-
Level Meeting held on 5 February. That assessment had been, overall, very positive.  
2.2.  The Council had also received its first notification with respect to the waiver Decision, from 
Canada, in document S/C/N/792. Various Members had expressed their appreciation for Canada's 
notification, with respect to which some further clarifications had also been sought.  
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. S/C/M/123 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3.  Several delegations had indicated that they were still working on their domestic processes, 
with the aim of meeting the indicative timeframe of July 2015, agreed at the High-Level Meeting, to submit their notification.  
2.4.  He was therefore pleased to draw Members'  attention to the notification of preferential 
treatment to services and service suppliers of LD Cs submitted to the Council by Australia, on 29 
May. The Australian notification was contained in document S/C/N/805. The Australian notification had been submitted after the airgram had been i ssued, and therefore it did not appear on the 
airgram for that meeting. In line with standard practice, it would be included in the airgram of the 
following Council meeting. However, this did not prevent Members from already addressing the notification at that meeting. 
2.5.  The representative of Australia said that, in accordance with the commitment by Ministers in 
Bali on the operationalization of the LDCs services  waiver and in line with Australia's statement at 
the High-Level Meeting in February, it was her pleasure to introduce Australia's notification under the waiver. Australia's notification had been deve loped to respond directly to the LDC collective 
request and discussions her delegation had ha d with LDCs about areas where Australian 
preferences would be of greatest commercial interest. 
2.6.  The notification included preferences in LDCs priority areas including:  
a. temporary entry (mode 4) for contractual services suppliers, which in Australia's 
system included independent professionals, equal to the best treatment Australia had 
provided in any FTA; 
b. tourism, removing commercial presence requirements for cross-border trade (mode 1) 
for LDCs travel agencies and tour operators; 
c. a long list of preferences for transport and logistics related services, including: 
maritime auxiliary services, building on Australia's existing GATS commitments; air 
transport services, including ground-handling services and airport operation services; 
road and rail transport services; as well as services that supported all modes of 
transport;  
d. ICT services;  
e. specific preferences identified by LDCs in section 40 of the collective request, such as 
landscape architecture services, maintenance and repair services, packaging services, and even services that had not previously been considered by Australia in the DDA 
negotiations, such as washing, cleaning an d dyeing and hairdressing and other beauty 
services. 
2.7.  Australia's notification had focused on ma rket access measures under GATS Article XVI, in 
accordance with the focus of the MC8 waiver Decision. She noted that Australia did not maintain 
any national treatment limitations for any of the preferences listed in its notification. 
2.8.  In addition to introducing the notification , she wished to provide a brief update on aid-for-
trade activities which Australia had funded to support effective implementation of the waiver. As 
her Ambassador had announced in February, Australia had committed nearly AUS$2.5 million over two years in new development funding for two aid-for-trade activities in the Indo-Pacific region and to complement trade preferences provided by WTO Members and contribute to increasing 
LDCs participation in trade in services.  
2.9.  Australia was partnering with the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable 
Development (ICTSD) to assist LDCs to identify services potential to secure outcomes in services 
trade negotiations. That activity responded to requests Australia had received from LDCs to extend 
ICTSD work from 2014 on services and the waiv er. ICTSD was engaging with African and Low 
Income Countries on how they could build thei r services supply and trade capacity and had 
undertaken a series of studies and multi-stakehol der dialogues in those regions. That services 
work would increase LDCs' understanding of servic es trade priorities, which in turn would improve 
LDCs' ability to pursue effective outcomes in services trade negotiations. S/C/M/123 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.10.  Australia was also working with the Institute for International Trade (IIT) to build 
understanding of how services could contribute to economic growth, particularly in relation to the use of the LDC waiver. The IIT, based within the University of Adelaide, was running courses on trade in services and trade agreements for least developed and developing country officials in 
Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Paci fic. That training, which would be open to 
government officials and private sector representa tives, focused on building understanding of how 
LDCs could benefit from increased services trade,  including through trade negotiations. The first 
regional training workshop was being undertaken in Cambodia in the week beginning 8 June. The 
IIT was also running a training workshop for Ge neva-based LDC and developing country officials 
later in June, and she encouraged LDC officials to attend that workshop. 
2.11.  All delegations who spoke congratulated Australia on its notification. Many indicated that 
they were in the process of reviewing it in detail. 2.12.  The representative of Bangladesh, speaking  o n  b e h a l f  o f  t h e  L D C  G r o u p ,  w i s h e d  t o  t a k e  
stock of the progress made on the implementation of the MC8 and MC9 Decisions on the LDC 
services waiver. LDCs had appreciated the very positive announcements made at the High-Level 
Meeting by a number of Members, both develo ped and developing ones. For the most part, 
Members had tried to cover as much as possible of the scope of the LDC collective request. The 
Group wished to encourage Members to stay the course and expedite their domestic procedures, 
to convert the indications at the High-Level Meetin g into notifications of preferences by the end of 
July. In that respect, LDCs were sincerely thankf ul to Australia for its recent notification. LDCs 
viewed the process for deliverables for MC10 and the objective to receive notifications by July as 
two separate tracks. The Group hoped that Members would undertake effective measures for LDC 
services and service suppliers. They urged Members to submit their notification as early as possible, so that they could evaluate the situation after 31 July.  
2.13.  The LDC Group had held more than 25 bilateral meetings since the previous Council 
meeting in March and had found that it could engage well with Members and enhance its understanding of what was needed to meet the Ju ly timeframe. Building on the positive outcome 
of the High-Level Meeting in Febr uary, notifications of concrete preferences by July would be a 
success story on the implementation of another Bali Decision and contribute to the development dimension of the DDA for the WTO's poorest Members.  
2.14.  The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group as the focal point on 
services, echoed the call of Bangladesh for Members to redouble their efforts to submit 
notifications of preferential treatment for LDCs  by July. In notifying, the LDC Group urged 
Members to use the format for notifications it had suggested in document JOB/SERV/194. But 
what was important was that, at a minimum, Members follow the precepts for notifications found 
in paragraph 2 of the MC8 waiver Decision, i.e. th e notification had to specify the preferences by 
sector and subsector, as well as their duration.  
2.15.  In that regard, the Group took the opportuni ty to applaud the recent notification made by 
Australia, which appeared to be consistent with paragraph 2 of the MC8 waiver Decision. LDCs' preliminary view was that the structure and format used at least clearly demonstrated to any LDC service supplier that the notification was abou t preferential treatment in their favour and 
attempted to cover sectors and modes of supply identi fied by the Group in its collective request. In 
some cases it seemed that, in its notification, Australia might even have improved on its announcements at the High-Level Meeting, by addi ng more sectors for preferential treatment in 
response to the collective request.  
2.16.  LDCs cautioned against submission of no tifications that only paraded information about 
existing openness available to all services suppliers, whether from LDC or non-LDC. If Members 
were ready to provide LDCs preferential treatmen t drawn from their existing openness or existing 
GATS and FTA/RTA commitments, the LDC Group welc omed notifications that expressly included 
those preferences for LDC suppliers in accordance with the purpose of the waiver Decision.  
2.17.  LDCs had been anxious to examine the fi rst notification from Canada. At the previous 
meeting of the Council, the LDC Group had posed ques tions with regard to that notification. It had 
subsequently held a bilateral meeting with Canada to better understand the purpose of the notification. Unfortunately, to date, the Group found that the Canadian notification did not appear S/C/M/123 
 
- 4 - 
 
  to contain any preferences and was not a notifi cation pursuant to the MC8 and MC9 waiver 
Decisions. It therefore urged Canada to reconsider its notification and submit a revision that clearly contained preferential treatment for LDC services and service suppliers.  
2.18.  Similarly, vague notifications would only create more uncertainty for LDC service suppliers 
who were already struggling to export and buil d capacity to engage in the marketplace. 
Notifications should not introduce new obstacles that made it again difficult for LDC suppliers to avail themselves of any benefits in the services pillar. Many LDC suppliers might have secured 
offers or contracts with consumers in developed markets. The waiver, followed by clear and 
precise notifications granting preferences, provid ed an incentive for more offers to LDC service 
suppliers and provided predictability and confiden ce to consumers worldwide. In that way, LDCs 
could take advantage of opportunities and compete.  
2.19.  Since the previous meeting of the Counc il, the LDC Group had held several bilateral 
meetings to better gauge the specifics of announcements made and to learn when Members would sumbit their notifications. However, as a result of the cloud cast over the manner of notifying 
preferential treatment, they had used the bilatera ls to reassert the purpose of the waiver and of 
the High-Level Meeting. The waiver, any waiver mechanism in the WTO, furnished Members in a 
position to grant preferences a shield fr om challenges under the MFN obligation.  
2.20.  The LDC Group had also used the bilaterals to explore further some other indications made 
at the High-Level Meeting. A few Members had made partial indications and/or stated that the High-Level Meeting had been a learning exerci se for them. The Group urged those Members to 
improve on any intended preferential treatment in favour of LDCs and include in their upcoming 
notifications additional preferential treatment in sectors and modes of supply identified in the LDC 
collective request.  
2.21.  The LDC Group stressed that market access in mode 4, including where Economic Needs 
Tests and Labour Market Tests were eliminated, required the reduction of administrative barriers, 
including the reduction of fees for visas, work pe rmits and residence permits, and the reduction of 
paperwork. LDCs felt that some of those measures  did not require changes in legislation in many 
Members and should, as such, be doable for Memb ers having problems with mode 4 market access 
offers. Facilitation, or the creation of a better enabling environment for the recognition of LDC degrees and qualifications, should also be part  of a development-focused response to the LDC 
collective request and an objective that would enhance notifications.  
2.22.  The MC8 waiver Decision allowed for preferences to be granted beyond GATS Article XVI. 
The LDC collective request regarding visas and other administrative procedures, and recognition was within the remit of the GATS, as clearly stated in GATS Article VI:4, Article VII and the Annex 
on the Movement of Natural Persons. What was provided in the waiver Decision was a different 
procedure, as the Council was required to authorize those preferences. The LDC Group requested that the Council prepare to expeditiously authorize all notifications submitted containing 
preferences beyond GATS Article XVI.  
2.23.  Finally, while not subject to notification , the LDC Group encouraged Members to provide 
technical assistance and capacity-building for LDC service suppliers, to help orient them to the utilization of the preferences provided along th e lines of paragraph 3.2 of the LDC collective 
request.  
2.24.  The LDC Group wished to applaud the init iative of India and China to include in their 
announcements responses, in terms of preference s for LDC service suppliers, on visa fees and 
simplification of procedures.  
2.25.  The LDC Group thanked all Members who had acted in good faith and participated to 
provide concrete preferences. However, the period of the waiver itself was eroding. Notification of 
preferential treatment responsive to the collectiv e request was a critical next step, and Members 
had agreed to target July that year. Notifications beyond July contributed to the erosion of the duration of the waiver Decision.  
2.26.  The representative of Canada stressed that his delegation was firmly committed to 
integrating LDCs into world services trade and it s notification represented a sincere effort to S/C/M/123 
 
- 5 - 
 
  address the interests of LDCs. As previously noted, Canada's regime already provided most of the 
treatment requested and covered 75% of the sectors identified in the LDC collective request. His 
delegation stood ready to engage to see how LDC service suppliers could take advantage of such 
significant openness. He had taken note of the LDC Group's comments on Canada's notification 
pursuant to the waiver.  
2.27.  The representative of China said that his de legation was still in the process of preparing its 
notification in line with its domestic procedures and would submit it as soon as possible, once 
those procedures were completed. 
2.28.  The representative of India informed th at Council that, on 20 May 2015, India had hosted 
an LDC Ambassadors' conference in New Delhi, as an outreach exercise to further explain the 
indications of preferences provid ed by India at the High-Level Meeting, which her delegation 
believed would, in turn, help LDCs take advantag e of the opportunities in the Indian market. Her 
delegation was working on the notification, the necessary internal processes had already begun and thus it hoped to submit its notification as soon as possible. 
2.29.  The representative of the European Union updated the Council on progress with its 
notification, saying that internal processes were on-going. It was no longer a matter of the content 
of the notification, which had been detailed at the High-Level Meeting, but rather a matter of 
completing the necessary internal procedures. His delegation was aiming to submit the notification 
by the end of July and would keep the LDC Group informed of progress. 
2.30.  The representative of Brazil said that his delegation was also in the process of drafting its 
notification. In the preparatory discussions, some initial technical questions had arisen and his 
delegation intended to approach the Secretariat and the LDC Group, as needed, to try to clarify 
those issues. Once that had been done, Brazil hoped to submit its notification as soon as possible. 
2.31.  The representative of the Republic of Korea said that his delegation was currently in the 
process of capturing the preferential treatment that  they were willing to grant to LDCs in written 
form and inter-ministerial consultations were being undertaken to iron out the details. Korea would make every effort to submit its notification by the end of July. 
2.32.  The representative of Turkey said her dele gation was also working on its notification and 
intended to meet the July timeframe. It was in contact with Turkey's foreign missions in LDCs and 
was also organising meetings with the relevant ministries the following week. 
2.33.  The representative of New Zealand supported the increased participation of LDCs in world 
services trade. For that reason, her delegation was working very diligently in capital in terms of 
preparing its own notification. The timing depended on completion of internal processes, but New Zealand was doing its best and aiming for the July indicative timeframe. 
2.34.  By way of update, the representative of Japa n said that internal processes were on-going in 
terms of crafting Japan's notification, and his delegation was aiming to submit it as soon as 
possible, by July. 
2.35.  The representative of Hong Kong, China also provided an update. She assured the LDC 
Group that her delegation was working diligently towards the timeframe of end July to submit its 
notification, subject to the completion of the necessary domestic processes. 
2.36.  The representative of Mexico noted that the format of Australia's notification was simple and 
transparent. Her delegation was working on its own notification and would do every effort to meet 
the July timeframe to submit it. 
2.37.  The representative of Chinese Taipei said that her delegation was also preparing its own 
notification and would submit it by the end of July and as soon as possible. 
2.38.  The representative of Norway reiterated her delegation's commitment to the 
operationalisation of the LDC waiver. Norway was also working on its notification and completing 
internal consultations necessary to finalise the notification within the agreed indicative timeline. S/C/M/123 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.39.  The representative of Switzerland also in dicated that internal processes were on-going. 
Switzerland aimed to submit its notification before the end of July, subject to the successful 
completion of the necessary processes. 
2.40.  The representative of Singapore said that his delegation was working very hard to meet the 
July timeframe for the submission of its own notification, subject to its domestic processes. 
2.41.  The representative of the United States said  that Australia's notification would be helpful to 
his delegation's internal review in preparation of any notification. 
2.42.  The representative of Nepal echoed the stat ements by Bangladesh and Uganda. He said that 
LDCs were impatiently waiting for notifications of preferences with commercially meaningful 
outcomes for them. In that regard, he congratulated Australia for its notification which was a good initiative, and encouraged all Members to submit their notifications before the end of July to enable 
LDCs to enhance their participation in international services markets. 
2.43.  The representative of Thailand indicate d that his delegation was also working on the 
necessary internal processes to meet the July timeframe for the submission of its notification. 
2.44.  The Chairman thanked all Members for their comments. He noted the appreciation 
expressed by the LDC Group for the notification by  Australia, as well as their encouragement to 
other Members to notify in due time. He added his thanks to Australia for its notification. Several 
delegations had indicated that, while they were still engaged in the necessary domestic processes, 
they were working towards the objective of submitting their respective notifications by the indicative timeframe of end July. He added his own words of encouragement to delegations to 
strive for that aim. He noted that Bangladesh had referred to a stock-taking exercise after the end 
of July, and wondered if Bangladesh was suggesting holding a Council meeting to that effect. 
2.45.  The representative of Bangladesh explai ned that, after the end of July timeframe had 
passed, the LDC Group would review and analyse the notifications submitted with the aim of 
deciding on the next course of action. 
2.46.  The Chairman suggested that the Council ta ke note of the statements made, and revert to 
the item at its next meeting. 
2.47.  It was so agreed. 
3  ITEM C – WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
3.1.  Turning to the Work Programme on Electron ic Commerce, the Chairman recalled that, at its 
March meeting, the Council had focused most of its attention on the intervention made by the 
United States about its communication for the e-commerce Work Programme, contained in 
document S/C/W/359. Many delegations were agreeable to the suggestion that the Council discuss the issues raised in the US submission, provided, however, that this be done in a non-prescriptive 
manner.  
3.2.  Since that meeting, the Council had received a new communication related to the e-
commerce Work Programme, from Chinese Taipei . The communication, titled "Protection of 
Personal Information and the Development of Electronic Commerce", was contained in document 
S/C/W/360. 
3.3.  The representative of Chinese Taipei expl ained that e-commerce activities had been growing 
very rapidly in recent years in Chinese Taipei. The volume of sales through e-commerce had 
increased by more than 16% in 2013, to a total value of US$25.5 billion. In 2015, this was 
expected to exceed US$30 billion. 
3.4.  The most important emerging issue for Chinese Taipei during that upward trend in e-
commerce was privacy protection. On 13 March 2013, her delegation had circulated a 
communication, in document JOB/SERV/140, in order to share its experience with the newly-established regime for regulating and protecting the cross-border transmission of personal 
information. The main purpose of her delegation's newest communication was to share with S/C/M/123 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Members its most recent developments in e-commerce, in particular Chinese Taipei's initiatives on 
the protection of personal information.  
3.5.  Her delegation's communication was in three parts: a brief overview; privacy protection; and 
future work. Starting with the overview, she re called that the growing importance of mobile 
broadband in e-commerce had been highlighted repeatedly during the CTS workshop on e-
commerce held in June 2013. To support an ultra-high-speed and ubiquitous wireless broadband environment, and to enhance the experience of mobile application services, Chinese Taipei's 
auction for the 4th Generation mobile broadband services had been completed in 2013. Hopefully, 
the development of e-commerce would soon be further elevated.  
3.6.  The second part of the communication descr ibed the privacy protection initiatives Chinese 
Taipei had taken to build consumer and user confidence in e-commerce. The first initiative, in line 
with the OECD's principles of personal informat ion, had been to enact the Computer Processing 
Personal Information Protection Act of 1995. 
3.7.  In 2010, Chinese Taipei had begun to promote the Personal Information Protection and 
Administration System (PIPAS), as well as a certification mark for that system at the same time, 
called the "Data Privacy Protection Mark (DP Mark)" . However, in response to various changes in 
the social environment at the time, Chinese Taipei had amended the Computer Processing 
Personal Information Protection Act of 1995 and transformed it into what was called the Personal 
Information Protection Act (PIPA) of 2012.  
3.8.  Chinese Taipei's personal data protection laws stipulated that the gathering, processing, 
using, or internationally transmitting of personal data must be done in an honest and trustworthy 
manner. This could not exceed the scope that was necessary for the specified purpose, and had to 
have a proper and reasonable connection with the purpose of data collection. Those were basic principles in the implementation of PIPAS, which embodied the PIPA that she had described earlier 
and any other relevant regulations. 
3.9.  The pilot programme for PIPAS had been comp leted at the end of 2012. As of February 2015, 
a total of 17 enterprises had received the author ized "DP Mark". Furthermore, approximately 800 
professionals had received the "Certificate of Pe rsonal Information Management Professional", and 
more than 200 of those had gained further qualification as "Internal Personal Information Management Auditors". 
3.10.  In the process of promoting e-commerce, Chinese Taipei had found that the industries 
involved faced a wide variety of diverse issues, such as regulation, human resources, policies, etc. 
Therefore, one area of future work was to make sure that businesses did properly manage and protect personal information as required by th e regulations. That aspect of work would be 
primarily one of outreach and guidance. 
3.11.  As e-commerce became mainstream in trade, there needed to be a balance between its 
development and the protection of consumers' person al data. In other words, both public interests 
and commercial interests had to be taken into account.  
3.12.  Chinese Taipei believed that the full po tential for e-commerce had yet to be realized, and 
that an appropriate policy environment was essential for that to happen. With the right policies in 
place, the benefits of e-commerce would definitely extend to the majority of consumers and 
industries in the future. And, perhaps most import antly, multilateral coordination and cooperation 
would be an essential element in the further promotion and expansion of e-commerce. 
3.13.  Before closing, she reiterated Chinese Taipei's commitment to the e-commerce Work 
Programme. In 2013, a workshop on e-commerce had been held under the auspices of the Council 
for Trade in Services, to examine the most recent trade policy issues and learn about new business models via e-commerce from the business sector, including SMEs. Many delegations at that time 
h a d  e x p r e s s e d  h i g h  d e g r e e  o f  i n t e r e s t  i n  t h e  w o r k s h o p  a s  w e l l  a s  a  w i s h  t o  c o n t i n u e  t h e  
discussions on the emerging trade issues and ch allenges related to e-commerce. In 2014, the 
European Union and the United States had submit ted papers to further explore the cross-border 
issues related to e-commerce and encourage Members to continue discussions through 
information-sharing. One idea her delegation wished to float was for the Council to hold an S/C/M/123 
 
- 8 - 
 
  advanced workshop to encourage more Members to share their experiences and policy 
perspectives on those e-commerce issues. Chinese Taipei did not have concrete ideas on the agenda for such a workshop as yet, but hoped that the Chairman could convene informal consultations to further discuss it. 
3.14.  All delegations who spoke thanked Chinese Taipei for its submission.  
3.15.  The representative of China said that, in order to operationalize the Ministerial Decision on 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, his delegation wished to propose the formalisation 
of a CTS information-sharing exercise under auspices of the Work Programme. Information 
exchange/sharing was a notion that had been widely supported by Members in the Council. 
3.16.  He thus suggested the incorporation of a regular sub-item on information exchange into the 
Council's agenda item on the e-commerce Work Programme, under which Members would be 
invited to present information or introduce submissions, if applicable. 
3.17.  China's expectations for the information ex change were, first, that the exchange would be 
voluntary and open-ended as regarded substance or topics. Each Member would be free to choose 
whether or not to present information at a given Council meeting, as well as the topic on which 
they wished to provide such information. The to pics might cover those issues identified by the 
Ministerial Decision and others that Members were interested in. Second, the format of the 
information exchange would also be flexible and open-ended. This could include, for example, 
verbal interventions to provide information, su bmissions drafted by Members or their relevant 
agencies on particular topics, as well as submissi ons that consisted of sharing copies of relevant 
publications, reports, or academic articles with the Council, as well as presentations by experts 
invited by a Member or Members to address a rele vant topic (as had been done, for example, by 
the EU on authentication and e-signatures).  
3.18.  He then proposed, more specifically, that  Members exchange information on the challenges 
and implications for enhancing the participation of SMEs in e-commerce. The rationales of the 
proposal were, first, that SMEs usually faced pa rticular challenges in taking advantage of the 
digital economy. Exchanging information on how to  improve the capacity of SMEs to participate 
more fully in international electronic commerce would give impetus to the Council's work and 
prove useful to developed and developing Member s alike. Second, work on that topic would be 
consistent with the Council mandates under the Work Programme, as assigned to it by Ministers and by the General Council, as well as in line with the GATS mandate under Article IV. 
3.19.  With regard to the content, he said that  some of the types of information that could be 
relevant to share might include, for example, descriptions of programmes or projects designed to foster greater participation of SMEs in e-commerce, presentations on new laws, regulations or 
regulatory adaptations aimed at creating a more enabling environment for e-commerce by SMEs. 
3.20.  The potential areas of interest in relation to SMEs in the digital economy encompassed a 
wide scope of issues, ranging from licensing practices to trade facilitation to industry guidelines. 
Those were the messages that China had received from its industry community. Hence, Members 
would be free to choose to share information on whatever examples of experiences, programmes, 
regulations or policies regarding SMEs that they felt they could most usefully contribute. 
3.21.  China also considered that relevant international organizations might also be invited to 
share information on their activities, for example on the ITC project on SME e-commerce portals 
and logistics support, or the UNCTAD work on a database of cyber laws. 
3.22.  He encouraged Members to actively engage in the information-sharing exercise so as to 
help the Council arrive at a better understanding of the important issues facing regulators and 
traders nowadays. He looked forward to hearing other Members' views and suggestions on his delegation's proposal. 
3.23.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation was still reviewing the 
submission by Chinese Taipei and consulting with various stakeholders. In general, the United 
States had difficulties understanding an approach  to privacy and data protection that required 
countries to analyse and determine whether the law of 160 WTO Members were "adequate" to S/C/M/123 
 
- 9 - 
 
  protect privacy and data. The US general approach had been to require "reasonable security 
measures" determined by the provider, as it was usually in the interest of service providers to protect the privacy and data of their customers. It was not a good business strategy to allow such security breaches, and the industry took such measures seriously. In that spirit, there was 
additional guidance on those issues from various international organizations such as APEC and the 
OECD, who had both developed privacy principles that might be worth examining further. 
3.24.  As for next steps, the United States welcomed the suggestion by China to have more 
information exchanges and discussions on the issues raised in various submissions to the Council 
under the Work Programme. The focus on SMEs and developing country issues in the e-commerce area was important and Members should seize that  opportunity. His delegation was quite open to 
working with the Chairman, China and others to determine the best way forward, including on the 
idea raised by Chinese Taipei of having a workshop in the future. The United States was not as yet 
in a position to put forward a specific proposal on a workshop but looked forward to working with Members to come up with a helpful project. 
3.25.  The representative of Australia supported an active programme on e-commerce in the 
Council in line with the Ministerial Decision reinvigorating the Work Programme. It that regard, she 
was pleased to hear the various suggestions made for further work in the Council.  
3.26.  With regard to the submission by Chinese Taipei, Australia considered privacy protection to 
be fundamental to bolstering consumer and individu al confidence in the use of the internet and it 
was imperative that those protections were robust while remaining compatible with the context and principles of XXI century commerce.  
3.27.  Accordingly, she welcomed the suggestion  for a workshop to exchange information on 
experiences, including in relation to policies on privacy and data protection and cross-border data 
flows. The ability to move data around the world was an essential part of how business of all sizes 
participated in the global economy. Her delegation was also very interested in the positive and 
comprehensive idea raised by China for an agenda item in the Council under which Members could have an on-going exchange of information. Australia was interested in participating in any 
consultations on how to take forward the work on e-commerce, including with regard to 
suggestions which had been made previously, to br ing about a very positive reinvigoration of the 
Work Programme. 
3.28.  The representative of the European Union welcomed the contribution by Chinese Taipei. He 
acknowledged that the issue of personal data prot ection was very sensitive, but considered that 
increased knowledge of Members' respective systems was useful for increased trust and understanding. Data protection rules could contribute to trust in online channels, which could 
hence contribute to trade through e-commerce.  
3.29.  The submission by Chinese Taipei referred to questions on regulating and protecting the 
cross-border flow of personal information that had been raised in a previous paper circulated in 
2013, on which the EU had commented earlier. Without reverting to the substance on those 
pertinent questions, he recalled the EU's position  that trade agreements should not go beyond 
affirming general principles and should not se t precise standards on the substance of data 
protection itself. The EU did not consider that, for instance, adequacy rules should be negotiated or 
determined in free trade agreements.  
3.30.  His delegation wished to seek a few clarifications on the communication by Chinese Taipei, 
which could also be clarified bilaterally. In particular, what was meant in paragraph 9 by "non-
governmental agencies"? Were these private or juridical persons not controlled by the 
government? He also wondered if the information provided in the paper related to e-commerce-facilitated trade within Chinese Taipei or on a cross-border basis. In paragraph 5, the 
paper defined e-commerce as "a mode of trans-border trading"; his delegation believed that it 
could be useful for Members' deliberations to know if this referred to cross-border (mode 1) issues or only to domestic, within-the border issues that affected also the operation of foreign invested companies (mode 3). The EU believed that Me mbers should consider both. Finally, the 
implementation of the Personal Information Protection Act scheme appeared to concentrate first on 
one particular type of ICT-enabled commerce, name ly the online ordering of goods that were then 
delivered through established channels (domestically or cross-border), the so-called "online S/C/M/123 
 
- 10 - 
 
  market places". If the EU's understanding in that regard was correct, would the implementation 
then be gradually expanded to cover also services supplied electronically? Or would this essentially depend on the voluntary interest of the industries involved? 
3.31.  The EU remained engaged and willing to actively prepare discussions under the e-commerce 
Work Programme for MC10, and to explore collective ly how far Members were willing to go in the 
WTO in designing rules to help facilitate and spur the development of e-commerce. At the very minimum Members should agree at MC10 to continue the moratorium on customs duties, but the 
EU would be willing to go further and was happy to discuss any ideas in that regard. 
3.32.  As for China's proposal for a standing agen da item to exchange views and information, he 
wished to pick up on the specific point related to  SMEs. The EU tended to believe that the spread 
and open availability of information and communication technologies and the resulting 
opportunities for e-commerce had already greatly reduced barriers and facilitated the entry of 
many SMEs into international markets. But undoubtedly more could be done, and Members could collectively benefit from listening to best practices that facilitated the access of SMES, in particular 
from developing countries, into world trade. His delegation looked forward to participating in the 
Chairman's consultation with respect to next steps for the Work Programme. 
3.33.  By way of general comment on the e-commerce Work Programme and the context under 
which Members' discussions were taking place, the representative of India reiterated that Members 
were all aware that there was no negotiating mandate under the Work Programme. The only 
mandate was an exploratory one. Against that background, her delegation was not ready to engage in discussions that would arrive at a commonly agreed set of principles. For most 
developing countries, including India, e-commerce-related laws and regulations were still evolving, 
and it was therefore premature to debate, let alone agree on, a set of principles the scope of which was itself uncertain and continuously expandin g. In keeping with the mandate of the Work 
Programme, India could, however, participate in an exploratory, conceptual, experience-sharing 
discussion, provided it had no normative or prescriptive content or intent. Her substantive comments should be understood against the context she had just laid out. 
3.34.  She thanked Chinese Taipei for sharing its experiences with a newly established regime for 
regulating and protecting the cross-border transmission of personal information. It was interesting to note that the Personal Information Protection Act regulated the collection, processing and use of personal information in order to prevent the violation of personal rights and to facilitate the proper 
use of personal information. It was also interesting to note that Chinese Taipei had instituted a 
certification system, the DP Mark, for enterprises and professionals. Her delegation was interested in understanding further the modalities and operation of the DP Mark, and whether any such 
regional or bilateral solution for cross border data flows had been developed by Chinese Taipei. 
3.35.  On the issue of privacy protection in general, India agreed that privacy protection was 
extremely important to maintain trust in cross-bord er data flows. India also believed that privacy 
protection was a commendable objective and countries should be encouraged to adopt or maintain 
a domestic legal framework which ensured the protection of personal data; however, this should be done in the least trade-restrictive manner. The domestic legal framework must not create unnecessary legal and administrative hurdles for data transfers. Restricting cross-border flows of 
information based on determining the adequacy of the privacy regime of the destination country 
might not be the right approach, especially when privacy and data protection requirements could be maintained through other means, such as contractual clauses and other arrangements. It would 
be better for the regulatory focus to be on 'wha t' to protect, instead of 'how' to protect.  
3.36.  Against that background, she welcomed such  an information exchange on privacy regimes, 
in an exploratory context. As for the suggestions  by China and Chinese Taipei, respectively, she 
would take them back to capital and revert to th em. She asked to be included in the Chairman's 
consultations on that matter. 
3.37.  The representative of Norway said that her delegation was still studying the submission by 
Chinese Taipei and would revert to it. She also thanked other delegations for the ideas raised. 
Norway would welcome further discussions on e-commerce and supported the suggestion of 
holding a workshop. As her delegation had underlined in other committees and groups, it was important that Members' discussions be guided by the best information available. A number of S/C/M/123 
 
- 11 - 
 
  papers had been tabled in the Council under e-commerce and the proposed workshop could 
provide further information and a common understanding of the subject matter. 
3.38.  The representative of Canada said that his delegation supported a reinvigorated e-
commerce Work Programme, looked forward to future discussions and would welcome the 
opportunity to participate in consultations to clarify next steps.  
3.39.  The representative of Switzerland underscore d the importance of the protection of privacy 
and personal information with regard to e-commerce. It had been interesting to learn more about 
how this was handled in Chinese Taipei and his delegation would welcome further discussions on 
this topic. He also welcomed China's suggestion to intensify Members' exchange of information in the Council on e-commerce. He recalled that Switzerland had submitted information in the past, especially on the topic of SMEs, and might do so again. His delegation was open as to how to take 
t h i n g s  f o r w a r d ,  w h e t h e r  i n  a  w o r k s h o p  o r  a  dedicated agenda item, and looked forward to 
discussing this further in the coming months. 
3.40.  The representative of New Zealand indicated that the communication by Chinese Taipei was 
still being considered in capital but her delegation supported the idea of having further discussions 
on e-commerce, and exchanging views on experiences and best practices in international cooperation on the cross-border transfer and protection of personal information would be useful. 
Her delegation was open as to how to take those ideas forward, but noted that a lot of on-going 
work had taken place in the OECD and APEC on those issues, where New Zealand had been 
actively engaged, and that those processes might provide valuable insights. 
3.41.  The representative of Japan said that his delegation was a strong supporter of the e-
commerce Work Programme, was very open as to how to take forward the proposals raised by 
China and Chinese Taipei and looked forward to the Chairman's consultations. 
3.42.  The representative of Singapore said that  the communication by Chinese Taipei had been 
useful to understand how Chinese Taipei's measures to protect personal information affected e-
commerce. Singapore supported the e-commerce Work Programme and would welcome more discussions on such issues. His delegation was open to further ideas and information-sharing, and 
welcomed both the proposals by Chinese Taipei and by China. He looked forward to discussing 
them in the coming months. 
3.43.  The representative of Turkey said that her delegation was still examining the submission by 
Chinese Taipei and might revert to it. Her delegation was interested in participating in the 
Chairman's consultations on next steps. 
3.44.  The representative of the Republic of Korea said that the more important e-commerce 
became in the 21st century trading environment, the more crucial the privacy protection aspects 
were. Korea welcomed further discussions to move the e-commerce Work Programme forward. In 
that sense, his delegation appreciated the sugg estions raised by Chinese Taipei and China, 
respectively, and was flexible on how to advance the Council's discussions. Korea was interested in 
participating in the Chairman's consultations and contributing more concrete ideas.  
3.45.  The representative of Mexico said that she had found both Chinese Taipei and China's 
respective suggestions interesting, including the idea of focusing on the challenges and 
opportunities of e-commerce for SMEs. Her delegation was open and stood ready to participate in 
any consultations on next steps.  
3.46.  The representative of Hong Kong, China said that she was encouraged by Members' interest 
in discussing e-commerce. She supported China's idea to include a regular item on the agenda of 
the Council for a voluntary and open-ended discussion of issues relevant to e-commerce, in 
particular those that related to SMEs. Her delegation was quite open as to the format for taking forward that idea and was interested in participating in any consultations in that regard.  
3.47.  The Chairman thanked Members for their comments and indicated that he would be holding 
open-ended consultations on next steps, including as concerned the proposal by China to introduce 
a standing item under the e-commerce Work Progra mme called "Exchange of information", as well S/C/M/123 
 
- 12 - 
 
  as on the suggestion for a possible seminar put forward by Chinese Taipei and supported by many 
other Members.  
3.48.  He then recalled the Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce of 
7 December 2013 (document WT/L/907). The Decision instructed the General Council to 
periodically review progress with the Work Programme, based on the reports submitted by the 
WTO bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work Programme. The next such review, 
which would also be the last before the Nairobi Ministerial, was scheduled for July.  
3.49.  Therefore, in line with usual practice, he would be producing, under his own responsibility, a 
Chairman's Report to the General Council of the discussions the Council had had under the Work Programme since December 2014, in time for the General Council meeting scheduled for 27 and 28 July. The report would be purely factual, reflecting the essence of the Council's discussions at 
that meeting and in March. He then suggested th at the Council take note of the statements made 
and revert to the item at its next meeting. 
3.50.  It was so agreed. 
4  ITEM D – RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TRADE IN SERVICES 4.1.  The Chairman indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of a group of delegations, who wished to  update the Membership on progress with their 
discussions on a framework for negotiations on  a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).  
4.2.  The representative of the European Union was pleased to inform the Membership about the 
most recent developments in the TISA negotiations. TISA was a plurilateral negotiation on services 
among 24 participants, accounting for 51 WTO Members. TISA was built upon the GATS and open 
to WTO Members sharing the participants' objectives, with the ultimate objective to be 
multilateralised. 
4.3.  The latest negotiating round had taken place in April and had been hosted by the European 
Union. At that occasion, participants had continued their discussions in various areas of the 
negotiation, notably domestic regulation, financial services, mode 4 and telecommunication services. Disciplines under discussion were both sectoral and horizontal, and some were notably 
inspired by existing texts at the WTO and FTA practices.  
4.4.  As for next steps, participants would hold another round of talks in early July and would 
continue addressing disciplines in various areas. Participants also continued discussing the market access offers they had exchanged some months previously. 
4.5.  The European Union stood ready to furthe r inform interested WTO Members, should they 
wish to acquire more information about the negotiations. 
4.6.  The following delegations reiterated their individual positions with regard to the TISA 
initiative and asked that their respective statements at the meetings of the Council of June, 
September, November 2014 and March 2015 be reflected in the record of the meeting: India
2, 
Ecuador3, Argentina4, Brazil5, Uganda6, Cuba7, Australia8, Canada9, Japan10. 
                                               
2 Contained in: paragraph 6.11 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014"; 
paragraph 4.8 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the me eting held on 17 September 2014"; paragraph 6.5 of 
document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014"; and paragraph 5.3 of document S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". 
3 Contained in: paragraphs 6.6 and 6.19 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 
20 June 2014"; paragraph 4.11 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014"; paragraph 6.5 of document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014"; and paragraph 5.3 of document S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". 
4 Contained in: paragraph 6.14 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014"; 
paragraph 6.5 of document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014"; and 
paragraph 5.3 of document S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". 
5 Contained in: paragraph 6.3 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014"; 
paragraph 4.12 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014"; paragraph 6.5 S/C/M/123 
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.7.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take  note of the statements made and revert to the 
item at its next meeting. 
4.8.  It was so agreed. 
5  ITEM E – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATED TO THE REFORM OF THE UNIFIED GAS 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF UKRAINE - STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
5.1.  The Chairman indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of the Russian Federation.  
5.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation recalled his delegation's statement on 18 March 
in respect of the measures taken by Ukraine due to the adoption of the Law of Ukraine 
No. 1645-VII "On amendments to some legislative acts of Ukraine on reforming the management 
system of the Unified Gas Transportation System of Ukraine" of 14 August 2014. He said that, 
unfortunately, the Russian Federation had to revert to this issue and reiterate its concern as 
regarded both the substance of the Law and practical implementation thereof. 
5.3.  The Law provided for preferential treatmen t for the European Union, the United States and 
the Energy Community Members. The right to pe rform dispatch and operation functions of the 
Ukrainian Unified GTS System, as well as of gas storage facility, was not extended to any other WTO Member. The Russian Federation wished to dr aw Members' attention again to the fact that 
the Law, which was in clear violation of the fund amental principles of the GATS, MFN and national 
treatment, as well as of the specific commi tments undertaken by Ukraine under the GATS, 
remained applicable. 
5.4.  The discussions held with the Ukrainian side, which had been conducted three times since the 
Law had been adopted, had fallen short of expectations. Ukraine had not provided the Russian 
Federation with any reasonable justification for the adoption and implementation of those restrictive measures, nor had it provided responses to the questions raised by the Russian side. 
The acts of Ukraine that constituted legal ground for the application of the provisions of the Law 
also did not provide for any WTO-compatible explanation as to what had been the reasons for the adoption thereof and why they were still in place.  
5.5.  The Russian Federation stressed yet again that  there was no justification for such a violation 
of the fundamental principles of the WTO. In that  regard, it again requested that Ukraine bring its 
Law in full compliance with its obligations under  the WTO Agreement and not undermine any of the 
WTO obligations it had undertaken. The Russian Federation underscored the importance of the 
receipt of replies, as soon as possible, to the questions that had been sent to Ukraine on 13 May. 
5.6.  The representative of Ukraine had taken note of the interest expressed by the Russian 
Federation concerning the reform of the Unifie d Gas Transportation System of Ukraine and in 
particular the Law of Ukraine of 14 August 2014 No. 1645-VII "On amendments to some legislative 
acts of Ukraine on reforming the management syst em of the Unified Gas Transportation System of 
Ukraine".  
                                                                                                                                               
of document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014"; and paragraph 5.3 of document 
S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". 
6 Contained in paragraph 6.10 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014"; 
paragraph 4.15 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014"; and paragraph 6.5 of document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014". 
7 Contained in paragraphs 6.5 and 6.20 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 
June 2014"; paragraph 4.10 of document S/C/M/119, "Rep ort of the meeting held on 17 September 2014"; 
and paragraph 6.5 of document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014". 
8 Contained in: paragraph 6.17 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014"; 
paragraph 4.16 of document S/C/M/119, "Report of the meeting held on 17 September 2014"; paragraph 6.5 of document S/C/M/120, "Report of the meeting held on 28 November 2014"; and paragraph 5.3 of document 
S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". 
9 Contained in: paragraph 6.9 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 20 June 2014"; 
and paragraph 5.3 of document S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". 
10 Contained in: paragraph 6.18 of document S/C/M/118, "Report of the meeting held on 
20 June 2014"; paragraph 5.3 of document S/C/M/122, "Report of the meeting held on 18 March 2015". S/C/M/123 
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.7.  Ukraine acknowledged the receipt of question s submitted in writing by the Russian Federation 
as of 13 May 2015 with regard to the Law of Ukraine No. 1645-VII, which were being carefully considered. 
5.8.  In the meantime, Ukraine informed Members that, on 9 April 2015, the Parliament of Ukraine 
had adopted the Law "On the Natural Gas Market" No. 329-VIII that envisaged a comprehensive 
reform of the gas sector of Ukraine in line with the European Union and Energy Community legislation binding on Ukraine under the Energy Community Treaty and the EU-Ukraine Association 
Agreement. The new Gas Market Law had entered into force on 8 May 2015 and would become 
effective (in major part) as of 1 October 2015.  
5.9.  As of 1 October 2015, the Law of Ukraine "On the Fundamentals of the Natural Gas Market 
Functioning" of 2010 with its further amendments shall cease to apply, including the Law of 
Ukraine No 1645-VII. The new Natural Gas Market Law established strict controls over practices 
which could lead to restrictions or distortions of competition, including via the anticompetitive use of gas infrastructure, and it was directed at ensuring the security of natural gas supply for the 
ultimate benefit of final consumers. The most stringent rules applied to operators of gas 
transmission systems, as gas transmission systems constituted an essential facility for access of new market entrants to the domestic market.  
5.10.  Ukraine recalled that those reforms of its gas sector were taking place amid a genuine and 
very serious threat posed to the fundamental interests of Ukraine's society. 
5.11.  The representative of Argentina reiterat ed his delegation's systemic concern with the 
measure at issue. Argentina would welcome any future notification in that regard on the part of 
Ukraine.  
5.12.  The representative of Cuba wished to exhort all Members to abstain from applying any 
unilateral measures that run counter to their commitments and obligations under the GATS and 
that deviated from the rules and principles of the WTO. 
5.13.  The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the statements made. 
5.14.  It was so agreed. 
6  ITEM F – OTHER BUSINESS 6.1.  No items were raised under Other Business.  6.2.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________