RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/66  
 
18 May 2016  
(16-2721)  Page: 1/7  
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 17 MARCH 2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 17 March 2016, chaired by 
Mr. Eog-Weon Lee from the Republic of Korea.  The agenda for the meeting was contained in 
document WTO/AIR/WPDR/4 dated 7 March 2016. An annotated agenda for the meeting was 
circulated in JOB/SERV/226 dated 9 March 2016. Since consultations for the appointment of 
Chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies of the Coun cil for Trade in Services had not been finalized 
at the time of the meeting, the Working Party adopted the agenda without the proposed item 
(C) "Appointment of the Chairperson for the Working Party".  
1  ITEM A – DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS ARTICLE VI:4 
1.1.  The Chairman reported on his conversation s with several delegations since the beginning of 
the year concerning the resumption of work on the development of regulatory disciplines under 
GATS Article VI:4 in the WPDR. These conversation s had indicated that an exchange of views on 
two very basic but essential points was needed so  that the Working Party could map out its future 
work. He framed these questions as: (1) "where ar e we?"; and (2) "where do we want to go from 
here?". 
1.2.  Concerning the first question - "where are we?", some delegations had suggested that it 
might be useful to have a common understanding on the conclusion of the discussion before Nairobi. Clarity was needed as to whether the pre- Nairobi proposals on transparency were still on 
the table as proposals for stand-alone outcomes, or was there agreement that work should be 
pursued on the basis of the full mandate of the Working Party as set out in document S/L/70. As for the second question, "where do we want to go from here?", he encouraged Members to share 
ideas on work that the Working Party should engage on in 2016.  
1.3.  He recalled that text-based negotiations on horizontal disciplines under the Article VI:4 
mandate had been dormant since 2011. Since then, the Working Party had mainly engaged in 
technical work, and exchanges of information, followed by post-Bali and then Nairobi-focused 
discussions last year.  
1.4.  In his initial conversations with some delegations, preliminary ideas that had been floated 
were that the Working Party could: (1) either return to text-based negotiations; (2) engage in 
discussions or activities which could prepare the ground for subsequent negotiations; or, 
(3) require a reflection period to build a shared view on the way forward. These ideas were of course not exhaustive and were put forward merely to stimulate discussions among Members and 
trigger further suggestions. He had shared these po ints in his annotated agenda, together with his 
sense that an open discussion on the way forward was required.  
1.5.  The representative of Australia evoked her encouragement of the constructive discussions 
immediately prior to Nairobi which had unfortunately not resulted in an outcome at MC10. 
Australia was not taking forward the joint proposal on a transparency only outcome. That proposal 
had been developed in the pre-Nairobi context, aiming for a Nairobi outcome. Australia had always maintained its preference for a broader outcome. Many Members, including in particular many 
                                               
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/WPDR/M/66 
 
- 2 - 
 
  developing country Members, had made it clear that a transparency only outcome was not 
sufficient and not something that they considered to be in the membership's interest.   
1.6.  Building on the constructive discussions before Nairobi, it was timely in the current context to 
develop a discussion in the WPDR about the objectives for an outcome on Article VI:4. It would be 
useful if Members could share their views as to what  they would want to see in terms of delivering 
on the built-in agenda under Article VI:4. An ex change of ideas would be useful to establish 
whether the membership still had the same objectives that were set out many years ago or 
whether interests had changed and evolved over time and also in light of the experiences from 
negotiations outside of the WTO. Her delegation's sense from the pre-Nairobi discussion was that the interests of many Members had evolved since the WPDR negotiations had commenced in 1998. A clearer idea about these objectives for an outcome in domestic regulation would better equip 
Members to take forward a future negotiation in this area. There was no reason to wait with such 
an exchange of views in favour of an extended re flection period. Reflections had been on-going for 
several years, and it was time to engage in substantive discussions based on those reflections.  
1.7.  The representative of Hong Kong, China supported a return to the full mandate of the WPDR 
as provided for in Article VI:4 of the GATS. Hong Kong, China wanted to see a return to text-based 
discussions as soon as possible, regardless of which text would form the basis for such 
engagement. Acknowledging that some delegations would prefer more reflection time or a 
discussion about concrete activities post-Nairobi, it was important to have a firm timetable and to keep in mind that MC11 was going to be at the end of next year.  
1.8.  The representative of Colombia supported  working in a transparent framework so as to 
comprehensively comply with the mandate under Article VI:4. Discussions needed to be taken up 
in the changed post-Nairobi environment, under th e premise that domestic regulation negotiations 
addressed the entirety of the mandate. The disc ussions leading up to Nairobi had in effect 
demonstrated that domestic regulation was of particular interest to a wide range of the Members 
and it was furthermore an area of great benefit for services suppliers. The Working Party should resume its work as soon as possible. 
1.9.  The representative of Brazil stated that for his delegation the discussions in the context of the 
Nairobi Ministerial had been held in a particular context in which a narrowing of the scope to the 
issue of transparency had appeared to be the mo st pragmatic approach. In order to fulfil the 
negotiating mandate of GATS Article VI:4, a broader work programme on domestic regulation 
should be embarked upon post-Nairobi. Such a work programme would include other disciplines 
besides transparency, such as licensing procedures, technical standards, and qualification requirements and procedures. The resumption of text-based discussions should be based on the 
text of 2009, which provided the most solid base for progress. 
1.10.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signalled that her delegation was ready 
to engage constructively to move toward a su ccessful and meaningful discussion regarding the 
post Nairobi work. A fresh start based on openne ss, mutual trust and positive energy would put 
the Working Party back on track. Before Nairobi, Members had made considerable efforts to identify domestic regulation as one of the services deliverables at MC10, which she regretted had not succeeded. This confirmed that a transparency only outcome was not sufficient to the 
membership and that results comprising the entire Article VI:4 mandate should be pursued. A 
period of technical and substantial discussions was required to find a way forward in the negotiations. Likewise, she noted that market access was also a very important element in future 
services negotiations. 
1.11.  The representative of the Republic of Korea stated that her delegation considered the 
development of disciplines on domestic regulation pursuant to the GATS VI:4 mandate as an 
important element of work inside the WTO system . Like many other Members, Korea had pursued 
an outcome on transparency immediately before MC 10, but would like to go back to the original 
full mandate contained in GATS Article VI:4 in the post-Nairobi context. To fulfil the mandate it was imperative to return to text-based negotiat ions; this, however, did not appear feasible at 
present. Still, any reflection period that some de legations needed should not be too long. In this 
situation, Korea would like to explore some discussion activities that could lay the ground work for future negotiations. At present, her delegation had no concrete proposals on what the possible 
discussion topic or activities should be. Korea was open to any productive suggestion and would 
continue to be constructively engaged. S/WPDR/M/66 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.12.  The representative of New Zealand provid ed an overview of the general context for her 
delegation's approach to work in the Working Pa rty on Domestic Regulation; the reasons for which 
domestic regulation continued to matter more than ever; and ideas for the way ahead in the WPDR this year.  With regard to the context, New Zealand was pleased that the Working Party met 
early in the year so Members could consider the path ahead. At certain points last year, 
New Zealand had been optimistic about the gath ering of momentum on domestic regulation 
discussions at the WTO. She recalled well attended  briefing sessions and meaningful exchanges 
among Members for the first time in many years, concerning the types of disciplines that Members 
would like to see in domestic regulation. There seemed to be a real willingness to engage, and from a much more diverse group of Members than in  previous years. This indicated that there was 
a clear appetite to pick up the on-going work. Unfortunately, despite some very useful exchanges 
in the WPDR and the Council for Trade in Serv ices, Special Session (CTSS), and efforts to 
streamline the potential outcome to a more tightly focused transparency deliverable, Members had been ultimately unable to harvest anything at Nairobi. At the time, it was said that the proposals 
had come too late, that reaching agreement was too hard, and that there had not been enough 
progress in other important negotiating areas su ch as agriculture. Now that there had been 
undeniably good progress in agriculture at Nairobi, New Zealand was of the view that Members 
must renew their consideration of other areas, including domestic regulation disciplines, as soon as 
possible, to make sure that the situation would not be the same in two years’ time. As the Director-General had noted, and many Member s had endorsed at the General Council, the 
membership simply could not continue to proceed on the basis that we can do all the work at the 
last minute - work needed to start now .  
1.13.  Turning to the importance of the topic, New Zealand continued to regard domestic 
regulation disciplines as an essential part of the on-going services work at the WTO. In particular, 
her delegation believed that an outcome in this area would be an essential part of any services 
outcome at MC11. It was well established that ro bust domestic regulation disciplines mattered. 
They mattered commercially and they mattered to ensure a level playing field. Such disciplines 
went to the core of what the WTO was all about – non-discrimination and transparency. Put 
simply, domestic regulation rules were important to ensure service exporters did not face burdensome and opaque regulations and processe s in the marketplace that would undermine the 
gains made through market access. Ninety-seven per cent of enterprises in New Zealand were 
small businesses with fewer than twenty employees . Improvements to domestic regulation could 
have tangible benefits for such small and medium sized enterprises that did not have the resources of major corporations to navigate op aque, burdensome or unwieldy local regulations. 
Implementing good domestic regulation practices also brought benefits to each Member's own 
economy. New Zealand believed to have good practices in place. These had helped grow business confidence and attract investment, and were reflected in the fact that New Zealand was 
consistently ranked highly on the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index where it was 
currently in second place behind Singapore.  
1.14.  Looking ahead, New Zealand believed that  Members should return as a priority to 
substantive work as soon as possible, in the hope that the Working Party would be able to re-
engage in text-based negotiations. Members had collectively completed a considerable amount of 
technical work over the years, and should not gi ve up now. In particular, work under the full 
Article VI:4 mandate needed to resume. While New Zealand supported increased transparency, 
and in this regard had supported efforts to de liver a limited transparency-focused outcome at 
Nairobi, this had never been her delegation's pref erred approach. Rather, it had been explored in 
the specific context of the lead up to the Ministerial Conference. A broad number of countries, 
developed and developing, had indicated that they would like to return to a broader discussion 
across the full mandate of the WPDR. She theref ore suggested continuation of the discussions 
from last year on the basis of the full Article VI:4 mandate, to explore convergence and develop a 
way forward. Ultimately, the Working Party needed to return to text-based negotiations, and 
New Zealand was keen to do so as soon as possible. However, in the near term, it might be useful 
to engage in a period of activities and discussi ons on what to do on substance. She supported 
Australia's suggestion to have a discussion at the next cluster on Members’ objectives for a 
domestic regulation outcome, including their priorities for the next period ahead to MC11.  
1.15.  The representative of Indonesia stated that his delegation had never been a demandeur for 
an early harvest of transparency elements. Mo reover, the transparency proposals had been 
products of a recalibrated atmosphere leading to Nairobi and were hence no longer suitable as the 
basis for discussion after Nairobi. Indonesia was keen to see an outcome on domestic regulation S/WPDR/M/66 
 
- 4 - 
 
  on the basis of the whole mandate of Article VI:4 , taking account of the development interests of 
developing country Members and LDCs. On that basis, Indonesia was ready to engage in a text-based discussion. Going forward, he suggeste d that Members should focus more on what was 
being proposed than who was making a proposal. Conceptual discussions on the possible final 
format of a domestic regulation outcome, be it  a reference paper, a trade facilitation type 
agreement, or any other format could encourage Members to engage actively.  
1.16.  The representative of Norway expressed the view that work should resume on the basis of 
the full built in agenda. Transparency, although important, could not be the only objective of 
Members' post Nairobi talks on domestic regulation. As for the way forward, Norway was ready to engage in text-based negotiations. However, it might be useful to spend a little time on joint reflection or discussion to explore if there are other issues that were not covered by previous 
discussions in the WTO. After all, five years had gone by since Members had held the last real 
text-based negotiations, and interests could have evolved in the last decade.  
1.17.  The representative of Singapore concurre d with other delegations that the transparency 
discussion of last year had taken place in the unique circumstances of the pre-Nairobi period 
where Members were trying to harvest something doable. Singapore saw value in reengaging in discussions under the full domestic regulation mandate this year. That said, initial discussions 
should serve to clarify Members' objectives and respective interests in the future negotiations. He 
agreed with the suggestions to have an exchange of views on objectives during the next cluster. 
1.18.  The representative of Chinese Taipei agreed  with others that work should resume based on 
the full mandate of the Working Party. Pre-Nairob i proposals on transparency had been made in 
response to a possible MC10 outcome, linking in with  all other negotiation issues. After Nairobi, the 
Working Party had another opportunity to fulfil its mandate and continue on the basis of the constructive engagement that was visible before Nairobi. Transparency was an essential part of 
the domestic regulation disciplines, and Members should bring back their transparency proposals 
for discussion when the time was ripe. She concurred with the notion that a return to text-based discussions was possibly premature. There might be a need for either the 2009 or 2011 text to be 
updated in order to better respond to the needs of  Members today. In this context, she shared the 
views of Australia, Colombia, Korea and New Zealand and encouraged other Members to share their interests and objectives in domestic regulation with the wider membership. She also emphasized that the domestic regulation discussio n should not be linked with other negotiation 
areas as domestic regulation was part of the GATS built-in agenda. 
1.19.  The representative of the European Union expressed his delegation's willingness to engage 
in-depth and on all aspects of the domestic regu lation mandate, and considered it to be an 
important element of the post-Nairobi agenda. Do mestic regulation was one of the key areas of 
trade in services where further convergence amongst the membership was needed. Services exporters were often confronted with burdensome and slow licencing and authorisation procedures 
in other markets, and those obstacles constitute d important market barriers even where markets 
appeared on paper to be open. A strong set of clear horizontal domestic regulation disciplines was an important enabler for services trade. He was pleased that several Members had expressed an interest to engage in the discussions both in the context of the Working Party and the post-Nairobi 
work in general. In the run-up to the Nairobi Mi nisterial the membership had considered the idea 
of a more targeted approach on domestic regulation, focusing only on transparency aspects. The context now was different and the time pressures that necessitated a targeted approach no longer 
existed. It was important to bear in mind that despite many years of intensive negotiations, the 
Working Party had not managed to bridge the gaps  between various diverging views. In future 
work, Members needed to avoid repeating the old discussions in which everybody stuck to their 
long standing and well known positions. For tangible outcomes to be achieved, everyone needed to 
show a degree of flexibility also on critical issues . He hoped that the future agenda would be built 
on work that the Working Party had carried out in the past, as laid down for example in the Chair texts. At the same time, however, Members shou ld remain open for new ideas and new textual 
proposals. For the European Union, resuming work on domestic regulation was one of the priorities 
for future work and today could be the start of that exercise.  
1.20.  The representative of Japan agreed with others on the specific context in which 
transparency only proposals had been tabled last year. Domestic Regulation was an area of 
interest and could be a deliverable for MC11. It would be desirable if the Working Party could engage in text-based negotiations immediately. However, the important lesson from MC9 and S/WPDR/M/66 
 
- 5 - 
 
  MC10 was that nothing could be achieved unless all Members shared a sense of realism. The 
WPDR had its own mandate and it was necessary to have a calm discussion as to what was needed, what kind of responses were realistic, and what was meaningful for the development of 
services trade, before going into the text-based negotiations. Japan would engage in any 
discussion that would pave the way to the resumption of text-based negotiations. 
1.21.  The representative of China stated that domestic regulation negotiations were part of the 
built-in agenda that needed to continue regardless of other circumstances. China believed that the 
common efforts by Members in the past years shou ld be respected. Even though Members might 
not be able to start text based discussions right now, the potential outcome on domestic regulation should be built upon text on which Members views were converging. The ultimate disciplines needed to be comprehensive and guarantee special and differential treatment for developing 
country Members. China was open to any suggestions that could contribute to a realistic and a 
doable result within a reasonable time-frame. 
1.22.  The representative of Switzerland echoed other speakers in reaffirming the importance of 
domestic regulation in the services negotiations as a means to minimize trade restrictive effects of 
services regulation. Her delegation remained committed to a strong outcome in the WPDR in order to give full effect to market access. With regard to any activities in the Working Party, she 
assumed that Members worked in fulfilment of the WPDR's full mandate. Some valuable work had 
been done in the past and should be taken into account, but at the same time Members should remain open to any constructive suggestions in order to revive and advance the negotiations. Switzerland was ready to engage actively with  other Members in order to reach a better 
understanding of each other's positions and concerns. 
1.23.  The representative of South Africa recalled that the lead up to Nairobi revealed a broad 
range of views amongst the membership in terms of  the scope of ambition and the interpretation 
of GATS Article VI:4. With this context in mind, and while South Africa was of the view that it was 
too early to definitively map out future work, she offered the following preliminary views: work of 
the WPDR should be pursued on the basis of the full mandate of the Working Party with a strong 
development component. Her delegation did not have any concrete ideas on how to start the 
discussion in the Working Party although she thought that discussions on future activities, and reflections on future work appeared to be pragmatic suggestions in the current post ministerial climate. Her capital was currently reflecting about how a discussion may best be started and she 
would revert with some ideas at the next meeting. 
1.24.  The representative of India reiterated that domestic regulation negotiations were mandated 
by GATS Article VI:4 itself, and along with the market access negotiations mandated by 
Article XIX, constituted an integral part of any services negotiations. India had been actively 
engaged in earlier negotiations and was willing to work towards fulfilling both mandates now. She recalled that in the run up to Nairobi her delegati on had tabled a submission on transparency on 
measures relating to movement of natural persons. That proposal had been prompted by the fact 
that indirect or implicit regulatory barriers were most prominent and most inhibitive for delivery of services through movement of natural persons. Also, the lack of transparency in the implementation of existing mode 4 commitments impaired effective access under this mode of 
supply. Her delegation's proposal represented an important area interest for India in the domestic 
regulation context. In the past India had also mentioned that qualification requirements and procedures and development were important areas of interest. The substance of the proposal on 
transparency with regard to measures relating to movement of natural persons remained on the 
table and she indicated that her delegation migh t submit additional proposals in future. She 
encouraged other Members to come forward and share their ideas and areas of interest so as to 
lay the foundation for future work on domestic regulation disciplines. India was mindful of the fact 
that many Members were at present in reflection mode on the way forward in the context of overall negotiations. As far as domestic regulation was concerned, she assured Members of India's support and constructive engagement in taking this process forward. 
1.25.  The representative of Barbados, on beha lf of the ACP group recalled that the group had 
consistently stated that any proposals put forward on domestic regulation had to be addressed in 
the context of the WPDR and be based on the en tire mandate of GATS Article VI:4. ACP group 
members had placed particular importance on a robust development section based on the 2009 
Chairman’s text. Other texts did not adequately address the interests of ACP members and diluted 
some areas in which progress had been made up to 2009. However, the ACP paper of March 2015 S/WPDR/M/66 
 
- 6 - 
 
  on a post-Bali work programme suggested that even the progress reflected up to the 2009 Chair’s 
text required upgrading to include the principles of self-designation of transition periods and implementation linked to acquisition of capaci ty. Moreover, the ACP group had emphasized its 
offensive interests by calling for the elimination or reduction of restrictions in qualification 
requirements and procedures; and licensing requirem ents and procedures, in favour of developing 
countries and LDCs. She noted that the proposal su bmitted by India on transparency was linked to 
ACP interests on qualification requirements and procedures. These areas had been of paramount 
importance to ACP members throughout the Article VI:4 negotiations and represented an area 
central to the development component of the DDA.  The ACP group also supported the stabilized 
text providing that LDCs shall not be required to  apply the domestic regulations disciplines. The 
ACP group favoured a period of discussions or activities which could lay the ground for future 
negotiations, and emphasized the need for a reflec tion period to build a shared view on the way 
forward. If the decision was taken to recommence text based negotiations, the text of 2009 would 
be the point of departure. 
1.26.  The representative of Canada confirmed that his delegation would not take further its 
proposal on transparency, which had been made in the specific context of discussion before 
Nairobi. The aim had been to find a bite-sized deliverable for Nairobi but it had become clear that 
there was an interest in a much broader discussion on all aspects of the domestic regulation 
mandate in the WPDR. Canada was in an overall re flection period on what kind of negotiating 
agenda to take forward at the WTO and was considering how services fit into that package, and what services issues would be appropriate to pursue. He was not entirely convinced that domestic 
regulation was the lowest hanging fruit. Barriers to progress on the market access track were 
artificial and political rather than technical and substantive whereas there were a number of challenging technical issues in the field of domestic regulation. Canada was willing to engage in 
substantive discussions which could lay the ground for subsequent negotiations. 
1.27.  The representative of Uganda, speaking on  behalf of the LDC group, associated the LDC 
group with the statement made by Barbados on behalf of the ACP group. The LDC group placed 
priority on obtaining concrete commitments from its trading partners on the implementation of 
disciplines to remove any domestic regulation obstacles that impaired the ability of LDC services suppliers to obtain access to markets. He recogn i z e d  t h a t  G A T S  A r t i c l e  V I : 4  n e g o t i a t i o n s  t o o k  
place under a standing mandate and that the WPDR was the body responsible for those 
negotiations. The negotiations were captured under the various expressions of the DDA 
negotiating acquis, as set out in particular at the Hong Kong Ministerial. Notwithstanding the Article VI:4 mandate or the DDA mandate, the LDC Group had specifically addressed certain 
regulatory restrictions in its collective request related to the LDC services waiver, which had been 
submitted in 2014 and had generated first time notifi cations of preferences. The collective request 
focused on the removal or reduction of certain regulatory hindrances. The LDC group was also 
examining to what extent such regulations po sed obstacles to the fulfilment of Members' 
commitments to provide preferential treatment to LDC services and services suppliers. Noting the 
good progress made in this regard by the pref erential treatment notifications submitted in 
particular by India, Turkey and China, he recalled that the LDC group had consistently urged all 
Members in a position to provide preferences to take a look at what LDCs had requested and to 
recognize that LDCs were not asking for the moon. He recognized that there might be constraints on Members in this area. However, the LDC group had taken great pains to modify its ambitions 
and focus on barriers that were tantamount to non-tariff barriers in services trade. He thought 
Members could reduce obstacles to market access where LDC suppliers had obtained contracts and clients in non-LDC markets. LDCs had asked that Members to eliminate or reduce fees and other 
administrative burdens to obtaining visas, residency and work permits and licenses as well as to 
facilitate recognition of LDC service supplier degrees, institutions and qualifications. The LDC group encouraged Members to prioritize and commit on  these areas for LDCs expeditiously, without 
prejudice to the parallel track to implement and operationalize the LDC Services Waiver. 
1.28.  He appreciated the stabilized text for LDCs in the development chapter of the domestic 
regulation draft disciplines that exempted LDCs from the requirement of applying the disciplines. 
However, certain proposals emerging before Nairobi appeared to call that stabilized text into 
question. The LDC group insisted that Members should not disturb that exemption. Members 
should instead assist LDCs in tackling supply side constraints, help them better understand the impact of domestic regulations in services, and build capacity to enhance LDC participation in 
services trade and contribute to the developmen t of LDC economies. Any pursuit of domestic 
regulation negotiations should continue in the Working Party and stabilized texts in favour of LDCs S/WPDR/M/66 
 
- 7 - 
 
  needed to be maintained. In addition, development of disciplines to benefit LDC services suppliers 
should be addressed as a matter of priority, co nsistent with the expectations of paragraph 24 
and 32 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration.  
1.29.  The representative of Nigeria supported the statement made by Barbados on behalf of the 
ACP group. His delegation attached equal import ance to domestic regulation and the market 
access pillar. The present period of reflection was not limited to domestic regulation alone but to the entire DDA negotiations. Fulfilment of the WPDR mandate was a shared responsibility on which 
the membership needed to engage. Members needed  to take a cue from the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement which provided a useful model for integrating development issues by providing for self-designation and acquisition of capacity as a condition for taking on obligations. As to the way forward, an outcome on domestic regu lation alone would not be sufficient. 
1.30.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation continued to be in a 
reflective state overall, more broadly with respect to on-going negotiations, and how to approach 
the full range of opportunities that were presented by the Nairobi outcomes. Hence, the United 
States at present found itself in the reflective category set out in the annotated agenda, hoping to 
move to a more active category in due course. Do mestic regulation would be an important part of 
a larger puzzle of future services work, but certainly not the only piece. He agreed with previous 
interventions that had referenced the need for clear objectives. Up to now, the United States had 
said that the substance of the draft text was more important than its date of issue, but the United States was now opposed to both the 2009 and 2011 documents. There was no value in exhausting time on negotiations that tried to prejudice the outcome by beginning with one or the other texts. 
He stated that the only possible basis for progress in the WPDR was to start with a blank sheet of 
paper, and to come up with something simpler than  the existing texts. Members needed to search 
for less complex issues that could be negotiated as confidence building measures. Plenty such 
issues existed in domestic regulation. However, he saw no purpose in undertaking work on even 
simple issues in the WPDR unless large emerging economies gave assurances that they intended to apply any negotiated disciplines without reso rting to S&D. Indeed, many of these economies 
had sophisticated regulatory systems and he saw no connection whatsoever between the level of 
development and the ability to afford applicants for licences a basic level of transparency and due process.  
1.31.  The representative of the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela reiterated its position that work 
in the Working Party should take place on the basis of the mandate pursuant to Article VI:4. 
1.32.  The Chairman concluded that the discussion had been very useful. It had provided clarity 
that the pre-Nairobi proposals on transparency we re no longer pursued as stand-alone items, but 
in the context of the broader mandate under Article VI:4. While there was no consensus on the 
concrete way forward, he sensed that there was a general interest in further discussions to lay ground work for negotiations, recognizing that some delegations needed more time for reflection. 
A proposal to exchange views on Members' objectives and interests in the domestic regulation 
negotiations at the next meeting had been supported by several delegations. He also encouraged delegations to come up with more concrete sugges tions on the path ahead, ideally in the form of 
written proposals. He encouraged delegations to consult with their capitals, and to talk amongst 
each other to explore ways to move forward. As appropriate, the Chair would further consult with 
delegations.  
1.33.  The Chairman suggested that the Working Party take note of the statements made and 
revert to the agenda item at its next meeting. 
1.34.  The Working Party so agreed. 
2  ITEM B – OTHER BUSINESS 
2.1.  No matters were raised under 'Other Business'. 
 
__________