RESTRICTED  
  
S/WPDR/M/68  
 
 11 November  2016 
(16-6238) Page: 1/13 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 6 OCTOBER  2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held a meeting on 6 October  2016, chaired by 
Ms Katarzyna S tecz from Poland . The proposed agenda for the meeting , contained in document 
WTO/AIR/WPDR/ 6 dated 26 September 2016, was adopted .  
1  ITEM A – DEVELOPMENT OF REGUL ATORY DISCIPLINES UN DER GATS 
ARTICLE VI:4  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled the high level of engag ement during  the last meeting of the 
Working Party in June. At that meeting, a group of Members had proposed an exchange of views 
on key elements of domestic regulation disciplines to be developed under GATS Article VI:4,2 and 
a large number of Members intervened to share their views.  Upon request by Members, she had  
prepared an informal s ummary on the specific elements that were proposed for inclusion in such 
disciplines during the June discussion.3 During the June meeting, a number of Members had called 
for concrete text proposals to be submitted so as to allow for greater focus in the di scuss ion. In 
advance of today's meeting, the Working Party had received two Communications, one from a 
group of Members on "Administration of Measures"4, and the other  a "Concept Note for an 
Initiative on Trade Facilitation in Services" from India.5 The Ch air proposed to take up the two 
submissions consecutively , starting with the proposal on "Administration of Measures" .  
1.2.  The representative of Australia , introducing the communication on behalf of the co-sponsors , 
explain ed that the proposal responded to calls from Members for specific text proposals , and  in 
particular  the comments from some developing country Members that it would be easier to consult 
domestically on the basis of  short and clear proposals.  Co-sponsors suggested starting with 
"Administration  of Measures " as the first subject for discussion, as this element of the WPDR 
discussion s appeared to have the broadest support among  WTO Members.  The proposal dealt with 
the implement ation of licensing procedures, licensing requirements, qualification requirements, 
qualification procedures , and technical standards.  Co-sponsors had thought carefully about 
whether to suggest  separate chapters  for licensing and for qualifications as contained in the WPDR 
Chair text s. However, as there was a lot of overlap be tween the proposed disciplines within those 
chapters , and Members views had not always been fully aligned as to the precise distinctions 
between licensing and qualification procedures, the co -sponsors suggest ed to merge the relevant 
sections.  Co-sponsors b elieved that disciplines on licensing and qualifications could be divided into 
two elements - rules on how the procedures and requirements are developed; and rules on their 
                                                
1 This doc ument has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice  
to the positions of Members or  to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 JOB/SERV/231/Rev.1, dated 13 June  2016; Communication from Australia; Chile; China; Colombia; 
Hong Kong, China; the Republic of Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; the Russian Federation; Singapore; 
Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Turkey - Elements for 
Discussion.  
3 JOB/SERV/236, dated 28 June 2016; Informal Summary by the Chairperson - Possible Elements of 
Domestic Regulation Disciplines mentioned at the Meeting of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation on 
16 June 2016.  
4 JOB/SERV/239, dated 2 7 September 2016; Communication from Austr alia, Chile, Colombia, the 
European Union, Mexico, Norway, the Republic of Korea,  and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu  – Domestic Regulation – Administrations of Measures .  
5 S/WPDR/W/55, dated 2 7 September 2016; Communic ation from India - Concept Note for an Initiative 
on Trade Facilitation in Services . S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 2 - 
 
  administ ration or implement ation. She stated that the proposal was not based on any  one single 
text, and drew from the WPDR Chair text s of 2009 and 2011, co-sponsors  FTA practice, and also 
used headings from the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  Co-sponsors had carefully considered all 
previous discussion s in the WPDR and taken note of insta nces where Members indicated they 
needed further certainty in drafting or flexibility in applying obligations . The resulting proposal 
intended to be realistic and contain ed flexibilities to make it acceptable to all WTO Members.  
Rather than presenting the proposal line by line at the present meeting, she suggested meeting 
bilaterally  or in small groups with delegations that were  interested in further details about the 
basis for each provision . She h oped that th e proposal w ould form a good basis for resuming  text 
negotiations.  
1.3.  She noted that t he current proposal was only part of a n envisaged  domestic regulation 
outcome : other elements to complement the text include d (i) introductory provisions, such as the 
right to regulate;  (ii) general provisions, such as s cope and definitions;  (iii) development of 
measures;  (iv) technical standards;  (v) transparency;  (vi) development; and  possibly 
(vii) institutional provisions.  The present proposal included one part of the general provisions to 
clarify that the scope of the disciplines would be limited to areas where Members have specific 
commitments , as this information was important to facilitate Members ' domestic consultations . 
She noted that t here w ould be no outcome un less the ele ments developed were of interest to all  
Members . Co-sponsors were  interested in working with any interested Member s to develop 
proposals for all the other elements , and did not expect that the same group of Members would 
propose draft text on all the elements.  Some Members ha d already done some  work on 
transparency. Co-sponsors were also very interested in working with developing countries on 
development elements . 
1.4.  The representative of Argentina  expressed appreciation for the timely document and the 
readiness of co -sponsors to take into account  the viewpoints of other Members who did not 
specifically sponsor this document. His delegation welcomed the inclusion of flexibility  elements  in 
the document , such as in the expression "to the extent practicable " and the reference to domestic 
laws and regu lations . Argentina would continue with discussions with co-sponsors  in this 
connection.  
1.5.  The representative of the European Union , as co -sponsor,  echoed that the proposal 
constituted only one part of a future text on domestic regulation. The current proposa l focuse d on 
elements related to the administration of measures related to licencing requirements and 
procedures, qualification requirements and procedures , and technical standards. Rules on how to 
develop such measures w ould be part of another section of the future text and the same was true 
for other topics like transparency, technical standards , or development. He looked forward to any 
future text proposals from Members on any of these topics.  The co -sponsors of th e communication 
had deliberately chosen the administration of measures as a first topic to re -open the domestic 
regulation discussions in the post -Nairobi context. Administration of measures wa s a core element 
of any future text on domestic regulation as it touche d upon all the steps that an app licant ha d to 
go through to get a licence or authorisation to supply a service. Narrowing the scope of the initial 
discussions to administration of measures w ould allow Members  to engage in  focused discussions 
on very concrete steps in the licencing/author isation process from the filing of the application to 
the final decision.  The text proposal buil t on the progress made over the past years in the WPDR 
negotiations as captured in the Chair texts. However, it was not just a cut -and-paste exercise. The 
provisions set out in the proposal took into account recent developments and practices from 
various FTAs throughout the world.  The draft text also include d a scope paragraph which would be 
part of the g eneral provisions , and established a clear link between the  application of the future 
domestic regulation disciplines and the specific commitments undertaken by each Member. It was 
important to bear this in mind during discussions on individual provisions.  He invite d all WPDR 
Members to actively engage in the disc ussions on the substance of the communication. Th e 
current  meeting should allow Members  to get a good understanding whether the proposed 
elements could constitute a basis of text -based negotiations in the near future.  His delegation  also 
looked forward to any future text proposals from other Members on the topics that were not 
covered by the communication discussed today and was ready to engage in discussions on those 
remaining parts to advance work and deliver concrete results on domestic regulation in the  WTO.  
1.6.  The representative of Chile, as a co -sponsor of the document, associated himself with the 
statement by Australia, and emphasized the timeliness of the submission of the proposal, which 
invite d Members to resume substantive deliberations within the Wo rking Party on Domestic S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Regulation , so as to produce an outcome following  twenty years of work.  The proposal contained 
an adequate level of ambition, and incorporated many of the concerns raised by Members in the 
past. The proposal on administration of mea sures was only one element within the mandate 
contained in Article VI:4 of the GATS, and he hope d that in the coming sessions, other elements 
could be addressed as well. With e ach passing day, it became more important to develop robust 
horizontal disciplin es on domestic regulation that directly benefited service suppliers and 
particularly small and medium sized enterprises. He hoped that the proposal would enable 
Members to return to negotiating mode.  
1.7.  The representative of the Seychelles  emphasized that it was important that any domestic 
regulation disciplines applied only insofar as specific commitments were made. Horizontally 
applicable disciplines irrespective of existence of specific commitments  carried the risk that 
Members domestic laws in non -liberali zed sectors were not in compliance with such disciplines.  
1.8.  The representative of Japan  expressed his delegation's appreciation for the proposal initiated 
by the co -sponsors, and indicated that Japan would  be actively involved  in the discussions ahead . 
1.9.  The representative of Chinese Taipei , as co -sponsor  to the communication , emphasize d that 
domestic regulation  negotiations should be based on the full mandate of Article VI:4. In order to 
get back to text -based discussions, it was suggest ed to begin  the proces s with those elements that 
were essential  and which ha d received the most support in past negotiations. The administration of 
measures was one of those important elements of the domestic regulation  negotiations.  The 
propo sed disciplines  could  assist Member s in building a transparent and effective domestic 
regulation  framework for formulating an advantageous market access environment. She hoped, 
therefore, that this proposal w ould be the first step towards re-launching the domestic regulation  
negotiations, f ollowed by the progressive incorporation of other necessary elements at the 
appropriate time. 
1.10.   The representative of New Zealand  stated that his delegation, l ike others around the table, 
sought  robust, meaningful domestic regulation  disciplines as an essent ial part of any services 
outcome from MC11. That position was not based on a negotiating or bargaining perspective but 
on genuine commercial need. New Zealand's  service suppliers, in entering foreign markets, s ought  
fairness, transparency and predictabilit y to help them realize market entry rights. They 
consistently communicated this to the government and emphasized  issues in navigating licensing 
and qualification regimes as challenges in a range of markets.  He reiterated that larger service 
suppliers and c ompanies could  generally , although not without cost , navigate these regulations 
because the se enterprises were generally well resourced. However, for micro and small -medium 
enterprises which comprise d the overwhelming majority of New Zealand's and many oth er WTO 
Members' services export profile , navigating difficult and onerous domestic regulations c ould stifle 
their ability to operate in  foreign  market s. Hence , robust domestic regulation disciplines were 
simply about good governance.  With this in mind, his delegation was pleased to see a renewed 
effort from Members to focus on domestic regulation. The WPDR discussions in June had been  very 
helpful in re -establishing momentum, which need ed to be maintain ed. Working towards  a final 
outcome in time for MC11 re quired pragmatism and realism to address some of the policy 
challenges. For example, while New Zealand  sought  to negotiate under the full scope of GATS 
Article VI:4 multilateral disciplines that would apply to all Members , it was  open to discussi on of 
appropriate development -related provisions, once the substantive obligations of the disciplines 
were developed and clear . He called for a pragmatic process to take  domestic regulation forward , 
and support ed a return to text-based negotiation s based on elements  of the original WPDR texts. 
As noted during the June meeting , New Zealand also support ed taking an element -by-element 
approach. In this context, he welcome d the proposal by the co -sponsors  to address one element of 
the WPDR discussions – the administratio n of measures – as a way to stimulate discussions. He 
noted, however, that additional proposals needed to come forward in due course. Rules on 
administration of measures alone w ould not be sufficient to fulfil the GATS Article VI:4 mandate  or 
for an MC11 o utcome to be viable. At some point, there  needed to be a sense of areas where 
proposals were expected . The "administration of measures" was a useful element to start the 
discussion and the proposal was useful and had good coverage of the range of administr ation of 
measures  disciplines included in the previous WPDR texts. However, there were a small number of 
areas where targeted improvements to enhance  ambition  could be made . 
1.11.   The representative of Mexico , as co-sponsor of the proposal, believe d that t he document 
could allow Members  to restart negotiations on the basis of text. The proposal offer ed certain S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 4 - 
 
  flexibilities and cover ed many of the needs that ha d been expressed in th e Working Party  at 
previous meetings. Her delegation support ed any work that would  be undertaken in relation to th e 
proposal.  
1.12.   The representative of the Republic of Korea , who also co-sponsored the proposal, stated 
that t aking into consideration the interests of the membership in developing domestic regulation  
disciplines, and the need f or new text to push the discussion forward, Korea happily participated in 
preparing the proposal on "administration of measures". While the text might  not be perfect , he 
assessed it to be realistic and pragmatic , and based on common elements from the 2009 and 2011 
Chair texts, as well as many Members’ FTA practices.  Like many other Members, Korea’s final 
objective was to fulfil the full mandate of GATS Article VI:4, and the text that co -sponsors had 
submitted should be seen in this context as only one piece  of a bigger picture.  
1.13.   The representative of Benin , speaking on behalf of the LDC group , observed that t he group 
was still carrying out consultations on th e proposal . He underline d that th e proposal had not taken  
into account earlier  text that had been  approved a d referendum and mean t that LDCs were not 
ready to take commitments on it . LDCs wanted to reaffirm that there c ould be no progress in  the 
negotiations if Members pursued adoption of text that would be accept able only with great 
difficulty by LDCs.  
1.14.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  stated that his delegation  support ed any text which 
could facilitate a return  to text -based discussion. Hong Kong, China  was a demandeur in 
developing disciplines that prevent ed domestic regulations from becoming impediments to services 
trade. After all, Members shared an obligation to fulfil the mandate in Article VI:4 of GATS. His 
delegation would study the proposal in detail, and make proposals to improve and supplement the 
text, as appropriate . He welcome d any idea s on the draft, as well as any other text proposals. He 
hoped that the proposal was a first building block and that more proposals on other areas of the 
domestic regulation  negotiations would  be produced  in future to enable Members to fulfil the full 
domes tic regulation  mandate. With regard to process, he support ed intensifying work to examine 
the text and any other text proposals. Members should take advantage of the present momentum  
in the discussion . 
1.15.   The representative of Peru welcome d and supported the proposal  by co -sponsors which 
provided for concrete steps to achieve a text for disciplines under Article VI:4 of the GATS.  Peru 
also appreciate d the efforts of both the Chair of th e Working Party and proponents to consult with 
Members.  
1.16.   The representative  of Norway , as co-sponsor , limited herself to comment on some of the 
earlier interventions. It was  extremely important to have a basis to start negotiations again, which 
was the important objective of the proposal . She thanked delegations that had made sub stantive 
comments and stated that all issues would have to be looked at in a realistic manner. As Argentina 
had pointed out, there were many flexibilities now in this text , and she hoped that this would 
make the text digest ible by many  delegations . She hop ed that discussions on the merit of the 
proposal could move forward, preferably in open -ended format.  
1.17.   The representative of Singapore  recalled that her delegation had always expressed its 
interest and willingness to advance work on domestic regulation , regardless of whether such work 
was based on previous texts or new texts. Accordingly , she was heartened to see that the current 
proposal was a combination of a variety of  sources. The p rocedures addressed in the proposal 
were one of the elements that was important to her delegation . At the same time she appreciate d 
that, as the proponents ha d highlighted, there were other elements which remain ed to be 
developed , such as transparency, development, technical standards , and institutional provisions , 
and which me ant that much work remain ed to be done.   
1.18.   The representative of Côte d'Ivoire , welcomed the work by the co-sponsors , but wished to 
register some reservations . He considered the proposal to be a little bit too ambitious . In 
particular, he had concerns with r egard to the time scale in terms of processing times and the 
provision on copies that c ould be provided. He had other comments on other parts of the proposal, 
and agreed with others that there were aspects regarding special and differential treatment which  
should also be taken into account.  S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.19.   The representative of Colombia , as co-sponsor , believed that the proposal cover ed 
appropriately all the concerns which ha d been expressed over the years. Its focus on 
administration of measures w as highly relevant . He highligh ted that this was not a  stand -alone 
proposal , but rather one part of the work upon which all Members should build , including through 
their own proposals.  With regard to the substance of the proposal, Colombia believe d that the text 
contain ed sufficie nt flexibilities to cover the sensibilities and needs of all Members . Colombia was  
ready to discuss and cooperate with other countries who believe d that further work wa s necessary 
for an acceptable outcome for MC11.  
1.20.   The representative of Switzerland  welcom ed the paper as a contributi on to advance text –
based discussions in the WPDR. Switzerland consider ed that domestic regulation  should be a 
deliverable for MC11.  
1.21.   The representative of Canada  welcomed t he proposal by co -sponsors as a very constructive 
effort to begin negotiations on a set of clear disciplines in domestic regulation.  Canada was happy 
to begin th at process at the present meeting  on the basis of th e proposal.  Substantively, Canada 
could support each of the disciplines from x.1 to x.7 as drafted.  He underst ood that th e proposal 
was meant to be a framework that could be expanded to include other disciplines.  With th at in 
mind, he noted that as it st ood, the scope paragraph d id not match the disciplines being proposed , 
since the proposal contain ed no disciplines relating to technical standards.  Canada would be 
reluctant to include technical standards in the scope paragraph , unless there was a  substantive 
discipline that applied to technical standards.  In Canada's experience, most disciplines could not  
apply to technical standards, since these were generally developed by non -governmental bodies, 
which were not subject to the obligations of trade agreements.  
1.22.   The representative of Nigeria  stated that his delegation had always been supportive of 
relatively  ambitious disciplines on domestic regulation. Flexibilities for developing countries and of 
LDCs needed to be taken into account by incorporation of a development chapter. Such a chapter 
should correspond to what was contained in TFA so as to give reassur ance in terms of obligations, 
requirements and commitments. He noted the proposal by co -sponsors contained numerous 
expression s of flexibility, relating mainly to practicability. His delegation had always advocated 
striking  a balance between the 2009 and 2 011 texts, and the proposal by co -sponsors seem ed to 
have achieved this . Transparency obligations in future disciplines should not be burdensome.  
1.23.   The representative of China , expressed  the view that subs tantial text -based discussion s 
should start  as soon as possible , and that Members w ere heading in that direction with th e 
proposal  by co -sponsors , and hopefully other proposals coming forward. The mandate from 
Article  VI:4 of the GATS was a comprehensive one and therefore , Members needed to cover all the 
important elements and strike a balance among them , including licensing procedures, licensing 
requirements, qualification procedures and requirements , techni cal standards, development, etc.  
This had been the case in the discussions leading up to the 2009 and  the 2011 Chair  texts, which 
could form the basis for further discussion. China was not a demandeur in the domestic regulation  
negotiation s but was looking forward to more contributions from the membership so as to allow for 
a more comprehensive and in -depth discussion with a view to reaching a complete and balanced 
result.  
1.24.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , was pleased to see the positive and 
dynamic direction  that the work was taking, which would  put Members  back on track . It was time 
to discuss the different proposals with optimism, engagement and mutual trust. This w ould lead 
Members  to draw a complete picture of the future negotiations in services. She considered the  
proposal to be a good start for discussion on one of the element s of a domestic regulation  
outcome . Future discussions should take into account GATS A rticle VI:4 in its integrality. The 
outcome should benefit developing countries and not place any additional burden on them or 
reduce their policy space.  
1.25.   The representative of Thailand  reiterated the desire of her delegation to have a balance d 
approach in the discussion encompassing all elements as mandated under Article VI :4 of the 
GATS. She support ed text-based negotiation , and i n this regard appreciate d the proposal 
submitted by the co -sponsors . Various elements contained in the proposal including licensing 
requirement s and qualification procedures c ould serve as building blocks for the final outcome of 
domestic regulation negotiation s, and would  also help generate momentum for  the development of 
other disciplines rela ting to domestic regulations.  S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.26.   The representative of Bangladesh , noted that the proposal did not cover development 
aspect s. It would be very difficult to undertake more commitments. He also referred to regulatory 
aspects mentioned in the LDC collective request of 2014 which  Bangladesh  would like to see 
considered by the co -sponsors . 
1.27.   The representative of India welcome d the proposal and the discussions to facilitate trade in 
services. She underst ood from the introduct ory statement that th e proposal by the co -sponsors 
was part of a series of proposals that would be tabled in the future. It was also clear from the 
introductory statement that the proponents ha d chosen a different framework to present their 
ideas as compar ed to what had been  done in the case of the earlier 2009 and 2011 Chair text s. In 
India's view, given the growing importance of trade in services, and the role that regulations play 
in the domain of trade in services, the issues needed to be addressed more comprehensively in 
such a manner that trade in services be facilitated across all modes of supply.   
1.28.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  stated that his delegation was not a 
demandeur on domestic regulation  disciplines which would be  intrusive to its capacity to regulate 
on the basis o f political and development needs. For this reason , provisions should be made for 
disciplines in development, flexibility and special and differential treatment , including safeguards  
that indicat ed that disciplines must  not detract from fundamental rights of developing countries 
such as universal access , in particular when services  were related to human rights.  Therefore, his 
delegation had  reservations about th e proposal, which he saw a s an attempt to brin g plurilateral 
agreements to the WTO. He was concerned that development considerations ha d not been given 
priority. It was very difficult to understand th e proposal without an accompanying  development 
component. His delegation was  not in favour of discussi ng individual documents without  balance 
amongst the various elements and without putting development at the centre. Work on services 
and domestic regulation  should be balanced with progress made in other elements of the Doha 
Round , such as agriculture. Alo ng the lines of paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Nairobi Ministerial 
Declaration , it was important to highlight that work on services should not be carried out in a 
vacuum but should be balanced out with the Doha Round.  
1.29.   The representative of Brazil  welcomed th e proposal by co -sponsors which  allowed Memb ers 
to move  from the debate o f what might be the right basis for discussion  by presenting a  new 
option to move forward; the fact that the proposal w as text-based help ed move beyond the 
general statements or gener al objectives . Brazil would approach this text on its face value , without 
any sort of linkage, and on the merit of the substance alone . He expressed his contentment that 
the proposal was  not a stand -alone proposal, and was going to be part of  at least eight other 
blocks of topics. Of course the final assessment about how far Members had come in the 
discussion w ould have to be made on the basis of all the components together. He concurred with 
other delegations that the issue of S&D was important . The discus sion of one document would not 
preclude what happen ed with another document , and he acknowledge d the linkage or overlap . He 
looked forward to a discussion on the text itself, and looked forward to a  clarification  by the Chair  
with regard to her ideas to ho ld consultations in order to address the various provisions  in the 
proposal . 
1.30.   The representative of the United States  appreciate d the efforts of co-sponsors to present a  
proposal of sufficiently limited scope on which good progress  could be made . The issues  covered 
by the proposal were those on which Members in the past ha d been able to reach agreement. The 
broader implementation of provisions included in this proposal would produce clear benefits for all 
Members. He underst oodd that some Members would be interested in addressing other aspects of 
domestic regulation  in the future and suggest ed taking things one step at a time and building a 
track record of success. The  question of how to proceed need ed very careful thought. Based on 
what had b een said today , it appear ed that the Working Party  should mov e deliberately and 
carefully.  
1.31.   The representative of South Africa  stated that her capital was still assessing the proposal  
and that she wou ld come back at a later time .  
1.32.   The representative of Paraguay , expressed  his support for the return to text-based 
discussion s. His delegation felt that an  outcome for MC11 ha d to be balanced  and that domestic 
regulation  was a low hanging fruit  that could be picked by that date.  S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.33.   The representative of Egypt  welcomed the proposa l and stated that some clarity about 
definition s was needed . He was  looking forward to engaging in much needed technical discussions . 
It was very important to work towards a balanced and open agreement in general.  
1.34.   The representative of the Russian Federati on welcome d substantial discussion s on the issue. 
Development of domestic regulation disciplines would  contribute to creation of  trade in services 
between WTO Members and increase the productivity of the markets of Members.  
1.35.   The representative of Turkey  welcomed the contribution by co -sponsors but expressed some 
reservations with regard to the proposed article x.2 entitled " application time frames" and 
x.3 "electronic applications and acceptance of copies". Some of Turkey's institutions , especially in 
the fin ancial sector , found these provisions unworkable.  
1.36.   The representative of Australia  thanked Members that had provide d preliminary reactions to 
the proposal , and address ed some of the specific comments that had been raised. On the issue of 
scope raised by the  Seychelles, she noted that even though Australia would have an interest in 
ambitious disciplines that went beyond where Members ha d specific commitments , she understood 
that many other Members had difficulty with this concept. Therefore, the pr oposal by co-sponsors 
explicitly limited any disciplines in domestic regulation  to areas where Members ha d taken specific 
commitments.  In response to the comment  by Canada  on the reference  to technical standards in 
paragraph x.x ., she clarified the intention to devel op a proposal on technical standards  in the 
future . She considered it therefore appropriate to include technical standards in the scope 
provisions , while recognis ing that it was difficult to have a full discussion about all the general 
provisions until the various elements were brought together. In response to the questions on the 
absence of a development chapter, she took  note of the progress that had been made in previous 
discussions including exclusions for LDCs . She  looked forward to working with LDCs a nd 
developing country Members on t he development chapter of the  disciplines . Such a chapter would 
be important not only with regard to  exceptions and carve outs, but also to establish how domestic 
regulation  disciplines c ould help deliver on LDC priorities  such as those indicated in the LDC 
collective request.  
1.37.   As for next steps, she welcome d the indications of Members to move to more technical 
discussions on this proposal and look ed forward to doing so as soon as possible. She suggested 
holding an i nformal open-ended meeting to start discuss ing the proposal  paragraph by paragraph 
and to address questions on the specific language and the specific meaning of the flexibilities.  
1.38.   The Chairperson  concluded that no other delegation wished to take the floor on the proposal 
by co -sponsors and drew the attention of Members to the communication by India.  
1.39.   The representative of India, recalled that her delegation had been working on the idea of 
trade facilitation for services for some time. She was please d to be able to share the  
conceptualization of this idea  with Members at the present meeting . It was a well -known fact that 
over the last two decades, world exports of commercial services ha d more than quadrupled, and 
international trade in services ha d continued to grow at a faster rate than trade in goods. As per 
World Bank statistics, the share of services in global GDP exceed ed 70%.  However, while there 
was an  Agreement on Trade Facilitation (the TFA) in respect of goods trade, no such agreement 
existed in relation to services  trade . The importance of trade facilitation for reducing bottlenecks 
through simplification and streamlining of measures, disciplining fees -related matters, enhancing 
transparency and expeditious processing of imports and exports was well recognis ed. The same 
principles were relevant for trade in services. India's  proposal on trade facilitation in services 
represent ed an opportunity to respond to this challenge and address issues confronting services in 
a comprehensive manner. In India’s view , an initiative on trade facilitation in services should 
address the pertinent key issues, including transparency, streamlining of procedures and 
requirements, and eliminating bottlenecks.  Services by their very nature were traded across 
different modes of suppl y and there was no single point through  which all services were traded. 
Her delegation's paper provide d an illustrative list of cross -cutting as well as mode specific issues.  
Issues  that had also been addressed in WPDR discussions  included publication rela ted disciplines ; 
transparency in application of measures and clarity of commitments ; administration of measures in 
a reasonable, objective and impartial manner; opportunities to comment on draft measures before 
entry into force; streamlining of procedures;  prescribing specific timelines; single window 
clearance; and many more . India's proposal presented these concepts with value additions in 
terms of the scope of the regulations that are proposed to be disciplined. In India's  view, this S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 8 - 
 
  would enhance the qu ality of the disciplines and result in meaningful facilitation of measures 
without which commitments in themselves were meaningless. The focus of the proposal was on 
measures that impact ed trade in services across all modes of supply.  The submission set ou t a list 
of issues which were extremely significant for furthering the initiative on trade facilitation in 
services. This list of issues ha d been inspired by the on-going domestic regulation  discussions, the 
TFA ( especially disciplines on entry procedures and regulatory cooperation), several bilateral and 
regional free trade agreements, and experience of Indian  service suppliers. She welcome d 
suggestions from the floor for building on , and strengthening these elements.  
1.40.   She stress ed that her delegation was  flexible on forum . The pertinent place for discussion of 
the proposal  could  be either the WPDR or the Services Council's Special Session . India was also 
flexible on the  final legal form  that the initiative for a trade facilitation in services a greement w ould 
take. She underscored that th e proposal was not a substitute for market access negotiations, but 
essential for realizing the benefits of such negotiations.  Simply put, a services trade facilitation 
agreement was a critical element in realizing the full p otential of trade in services.  
1.41.   The representative of Ecuador  underlined that his delegation was not a demandeur in 
services and participate d in the negotiations in line with its development needs. In joining the WTO 
Ecuador had undert aken commitments which  were much greater in terms of coverage and depth 
than th ose of the  majority of Members w ith a similar level of development . It was very important 
to continue negotiating on Doha topics. Ecuador had made its reservations known because 
domestic regulation  disciplines c ould be very intrusive to a state's capacity to regulate , and could 
compromise the policy space that wa s required in order to achieve development goals. On the 
proposal by India,  the S&D treatment model within the trade facilitation agreement c ould be an 
option which could be applied to services, and would be beneficial to all Members of this 
organization. He agreed with  India that a trade facilitation agreement on services should address 
key issues such as transparency, streamline d procedures, and the elimination of bottlenecks , while 
noting the principles related to the development aspect, which should govern any future 
negotiations on this issue.  
1.42.   The representative of Benin , speaking on behalf of the LDC group , stated that the various 
element s contained in the group 's collective request concerning streamlining procedures, reducing 
costs, as well as qualification requirements , be taken into account  in a discussion of an initiative on 
trade facilitation in services.  Although the LDC group ha d negotiated transition periods and other 
aspects for trade facilitation, the context for these negotiations were very different.  
1.43.   The representative of Uruguay  stated that his delegation was very positive on the prospect 
of reaching a possible agreement on tr ade facilitation for services which might address  issues such 
as streamlining procedures, eliminating bottleneck s, e-commerce , and which would be in line with 
the TFA.  
1.44.   The representative of Nigeria  expressed interest in  the reference to the TF A as a model for 
an analogous agreement on services  trade . The aspect of special and differential treatment  was 
clearly developed in the TFA . He noted that some aspects of the Indian proposal relate d to e-
commerce . He requested clarification on the implication of the  Indian proposal with respect to 
Members ' current schedule s of commitments. He reserved judgment on whether the WPDR was 
the appropriate forum to discuss the issues set out by India until more precise drafting language 
was presented. He noted that the TFA ha d not entered into force and that hence no lessons from 
its implementation could be drawn upon  to date. It was therefore difficult to assess whether the 
Agreement was indeed an appropriate model.  
1.45.   The representative of Paraguay  welcomed the Indian concept Note which went in a very 
good direction . Paraguay could work on the substance of the document. He enquired how India 
was planning to lay out th eir forthcoming draft with regard to the specific elements , like the modes  
of supply . How might text proposals end up looking , and would the proposal be p resented in the  
WPDR or the Special Session?  
1.46.   The representative of Brazil  welcomed the thoughtful and insightful proposal by India which 
he hoped would soon be expanded beyond its current volume of two pages. Noti ng India's 
flexibility on the format of an outcome, t he mere fact that the title of the proposal referred to  a 
new agreement deserve d Members'  close attention. He highlighted an overlap of India's proposal S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 9 - 
 
  with the Article VI:4 mandate and elements contain ed in the proposal by co -sponsors . Secondly, 
he noted the suggestion to facilitate  data flow s in mode 1, which was also discussed in the 
brainstorm on e -commerce. With regard to the single window approach  mentioned in the Indian 
paper, from a national poli cy perspective it was awkward to imagine establish ment of a single 
window  policy  only for services suppliers  in mode 3. It was difficult to see how a single window 
would not a pply to investment in general . It was his sense that parts of the Indian proposal  fell 
outside the scope  of the WPDR . One possibility would be to discuss the proposal in  Special Session , 
but as the proposal did not contain market access elements, the adequacy of this avenue was also 
not absolutely clear . Perhaps some orientation by the  General Council  might be needed at some 
point, so as  to avoid duplication of efforts and overlap of issues  in the interest of making the best 
use of our resources.  
1.47.   The representative of Argentina  noted that while some of the issues raised by India might  
go beyond domestic regulation , the substantive contribution and India's  commitment to the 
negotiations on services were very important. Simplified procedures would  be of most benefit to 
developing countries. He share d Brazil's observations  with regard to  mode 1 data flow s, and single 
window in mode 3, and awaited more details on the various aspects of the proposal so as to be in 
a position to  assess it more comprehensively . He sought more information from India on the 
proposals concerning cross-border insur ance portability , and the cross -cutting proposal of 
disciplines with regard to taxes, fees, charges, and other levies. He sought clarification from India 
on the perceived relationship between these and the GATS.  
1.48.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted t hat the issues in the Indian paper were 
extremely comprehensive, and, like others, wonder ed whether some of them might actually go 
beyond the mandate of the WPDR. This comment was without  prejud ice to the substantive merits  
of the proposal , on which Chines e Taipei hoped to obtain  further specificity from India . 
1.49.   The representative of the United States  welcome d India's efforts to look for new ways 
forward in the WTO. His delegation also had a strong interest in further liberalization in services 
trade. As there ha d been a lot of activity in other fora, the US looked forward to makin g progress 
in the WTO as well. He expressed the view that that the success  of the TFA was built on a firm 
foundation , by which Members had been able to reach consensus on a discrete  problem  the 
resolution of which benefit ted all Members , i.e. the need to modernise customs processe s. 
Although the benefits of the TFA were manifest and well documented for both developing and 
developed countries , the scope of work had been  sufficiently l imited to be digested  and had 
focused on the clarification and improvement of three specific GA TT provisions. Drawing lessons 
from the TFA , he believe d there were three prerequisites for a services proposal to be a  success. 
First, the proposal should be fo cused on a clearly defined problem ; second , the proposal should 
provide obvious benefits to all Members ; and third, the proposal sho uld avoid known sensitivities. 
Structuring work around a proposal which require d an exchange of concessions was unlikely to 
lead to success. He suspec ted that this was why India ha d not mentioned market access. India 
did, however , mention issues which were known sensitivities for many Members. He enquired 
what, in India's view, was  the discrete and well defined problem that all  Members should agree to 
address . Secondly, he enquire d what India considered to be the benefits that w ould flow to all 
Members by agree ing to make certain regulatory changes . He sought clarification as to whether 
India ha d examples of specific reforms it had undertaken  autonomously  and the benefits that ha d 
accrued from such reforms? He recall ed from the TFA negotiations that provisions for developing 
countries were possible because all Members had confidence that special provisions for such 
countries woul d be used to ease the transition, and not as a means of avoiding obligations 
altogether. He enquired whether India could describe specific reforms in the services domain that 
all Members might  have a desire to implement because of a clear domestic benefit . Absent any 
clarity that all Members had a desire to apply the rules they negotiate d, there was a risk of being 
drawn into yet another developed /developing country deadlock . With regard to  procedural aspects, 
the issues raised in India's paper appear ed to go well beyond the mandate of the WPDR, as set out 
in document S/L/70. He appreciate d India's thoughts as to whether it considered that a  new 
mandate would be needed for the proposed negotiations. He recall ed that the success of the TFA 
not only flowed fro m its clear focus but also from its clear legal mandate.  
1.50.   The representative of Canada  shared India’s assessment regarding the importance of 
services in the global economy and in world trade. He sought clarification as to whether it was 
India’s intention t o frame its interests in a broader services negotiation, or rather in  a small 
package of niche deliverables?  It was  no secret that the paper touche d on a number of highly S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 10 - 
 
  sensitive issues for Canada , and his delegation would not consider taking any commitm ents in the 
area of health services or public education, for example.  Nonetheless, areas of common ground 
existed that could usefully be expanded upon.  For starters, he recalled the good discussion on 
administration of measures  just before . He underst ood from India’s previous interventions that it 
was seeking an outcome that addresse d the full mandate of GATS A rticle VI:4.  He sought 
clarification whether India wishe d to pursue a comprehensive or a targeted domestic regulation  
outcome.  The paper include d some interesting transparency -related elements . Canada was 
certainly interested in pursuing discussions around data  flows and other e -commerce related 
issues . He noted the overlap with work being undertaken in the e -commerce work program.  With 
respect to data  flows, Canada considered it important to negotiate a number  of provisions around 
data flows, including appropriate exceptions, disciplines on localization of computing facilities and 
complementary provisions relating to consumer protection, etc.  
1.51.   The repre sentative of China  acknowledged  India's  important submission and looked forward 
to a more detailed proposal in the future . 
1.52.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  expressed the view  that the Indian 
Concept  Note deserve d to be discussed with atten tion and an open mind ; it contained some 
elements that link ed and complement ed the Australian proposal. More clarification, discussions and 
possibly  consultations were needed on the substance and proce ss.  
1.53.   The representative of Chile consider ed disciplines  to facilitate trade in services to be a very 
important issue. There was a need for more details  to be brought forward by India.  
1.54.   The representative of Mexico  noted that she was struck by the fact that th e proposal ha d 
been submitted in th e WPDR since it contained various issues that probably lie d outside of the 
purview  of this group . She considered that the proposal could be submitted to the regular Council 
for Trade in Services  (CTS)  or to its Special Session  (CTS-SS), as some ha d said previously.  
1.55.   The repr esentative of Australia  expressed interest in exploring the idea of a services trade 
facilitation agenda and the prospect for negotiating new disciplines to address behind -the-border 
barriers to trade in services. She enquired how India plan ned to take her Concept  Note forward , 
and what the nature of the examples listed under the mode -specific issues  was. She wondered 
whether India considered that the list could be further  develop ed through discussions . Australia 
saw value in disciplines on cross -border dat a flows, but along the same lines as Canada, Australia 
would not wish to pursue these in isolation , but rather complement them with other disciplines 
that promote d consumer confidence and facilitate d the development of electronic commerce , such 
as consumer  protection, privacy , and anti -spam . She requested further clarity on the scope of 
India's  initiative , which Australia underst ood not to be limited to matters under the purview of 
Article VI:4. For elements of the proposal that deal t with licensing, qualif ications and technical 
standards, she would welcome if India could submit  a text proposal so as to bring these elements 
into the WPDR negotiations.  Where the intention was to discipline regulatory measures beyond the 
scope of GATS Article VI :4, the CTS or CTS-SS might be a more appropriate fora for discussions on 
how to take forward a new negotiating agenda for trade facilitation in services.  
1.56.   The representative of Singapore  expressed her delegation's interest in the Concept  Note 
presented by India.  If Austr alia’s proposal was a combination of old and new, India’s thought -
provoking proposal t ook the known concepts and ma de them more specific. But there were also 
some elements which were not typical of the WPDR discussions.  Singapore would be interested to 
hear what India ha d in mind with regard to the ideas on the free flow of data across borders in 
mode 1 and cross -border insurance portability. Likewise, her delegation  would appreciate further 
elaboration from India on the notion of single window clearance.  She agree d with India that the 
concept of trade facilitation in services require d careful deliberation so as to develop a framework 
that c ould effectively address concerns of all Members . 
1.57.   The representative of the European Union  shared India’s view that inc reasing transparency, 
streamlining of procedures and the elimination of bottlenecks were importan t issues for trade in 
services , and noted that t he communication that had been discussed earlier had a similar 
objective . However, t he Concept  Note presented b y India had a much broader scope and include d 
references to elements that normally f ell outside the scope of the usual WPDR discussions. As the 
Concept  Note did not contain detailed descriptions of the items it listed , or concrete text proposals, S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 11 - 
 
  it was difficult to take a position at this point in time. His delegation w ould welcome more written 
details on each of the items listed in the communication , and the particular domestic regulation 
aspect of each component  in the  paper.  
1.58.   The representative of Colom bia expressed interest in India's proposal, and looked forward to 
more specific text on its various  aspects.  
1.59.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  expressed the view that  the In dian Concept  Note 
had added a fresh perspective to services in general. His delegation welcome d ideas which might 
enrich  the discussion s in the services negotiations. It appear ed that the proposal s in the concept 
paper cover ed issues outside the mandate  of the WPDR , which according to document S/L/70  was 
to develop disciplines to e nsure that licensing requirements and procedures, technical standards 
and qualification requirements and procedures d id not constitute  unnecessary barrier s to trade  in 
services . What India ha d proposed in paragraph 2.2  on mode specific issues  seem ed to go beyond 
that mandate . Welcoming the flexibility indicated by India regarding the choice of forum , he 
suggested explor ing whether issues  outside the WPDR mandate  would better be dealt with in 
another body, such as the CTS or CTS -SS or even the General Counci l. He sought clarification on 
the term "automation " in the first bullet unde r section 2.1 relating to cross -cutting issues, as well 
as the proposed disciplines on taxes, fees, charges, and levies in t he seventh bullet under 
section  2.1. As concerned paragr aph 2.2, he sought clarification on  India's expectation s of 
facilitating free flow of data for mode 1 , and of single window clearance for setting up commercial 
presence in mode 3 . With regard to the latter, he enquired whether a  single window was intended 
to cover , for example , the business registration as well as the licensing or registration procedures 
for the provision of a particular type of service , say in the case of professional services . For 
charges mentioned in mode 3 and taxation issues mentioned in mode 4, the proposed disciplines 
on taxation, etc. seem ed to be related to national treatment  rather than facilitation . The Concept  
Note mentioned that the proposed services trade facilitation a greement could be based on the TFA 
in goods . His de legation  was of the view that there was a fundamental difference between goods 
and services, and , when transposed,  some concepts in goods trade might overlap with the concept 
of national treatment in services . This conceptual issue required further explor ation.  
1.60.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that the Indian proposal had a very 
broad scope and encourage d India to take the next step,  by submitting  an additional and more 
detailed written proposal .  
1.61.   The representative of Egypt  stated that the issue  of definition s was one that his delegation 
considered worth exploring further. He also noted differences  in the level of development between 
developing countries, especially when it c ame to new issues and e -commerce.  
1.62.   The representative of South Africa  said her delegation had taken note of India's concept 
paper to which she would revert at the next meeting .  
1.63.   The representative of the  Republic of Korea  welcome d India's efforts to re -vitalize WTO 
discussion s on trade in services.  
1.64.   The representative of Switze rland noted that more explanation was needed on some aspects  
of the proposal,  as had been highlighted by previous speakers, but Switzerland stood ready to 
engage in discussions  on the Indian submission.  
1.65.   The representative of Norway  stated that her delegati on had general ly looked at the 
domestic regulation  discussions as being trade facilitation for services. Some of the points in 
India's concept paper went further  than domestic regulation , but there was clearly an overlap  with 
the WPDR agenda . She enquired whether India was aiming to transfer the various issues that had 
been discussed for decades in the WPDR to another format , namely a stand -alone agreement for 
trade facilitation for services . Some of the aspects addressed in the Concept  Note appeared to 
touch up on national  treatment and additional commitments . Finally, she wondered whether India 
was thinking of re -submitting the transparency proposal that it had presented before Nairobi.  
1.66.   The representative of Bangladesh  stated that his delegation may have qu estions on the 
proposal, but was generally ready to engage on it.  S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1.67.   The representative of Turkey  believed that the Working Party could produce a  domestic 
regulation outcome for the next Ministerial Conference. Text-based discussion s should start as 
soon as possible. Turkey support ed the Indian proposal for an  agreement on trade facilitation in 
services. There was potential for strengthening the rules side  of services trade . In that respect, his 
delegation saw  benefits particularly with respect to modes 2 and 4, as set out in the  specific 
example s listed in the Indian proposal. In addition to what ha d been proposed by India, certain  
sector specific issues or disciplines could be developed . Barriers to transport and logistics services 
were particularly critical  in this sense. Other areas like postal and c ourier services, electronic 
commerce and distribution services were dependent on low cost and efficient transport and logistic 
services. While the horizontal and mode specific disciplines c ould cover some of the  barriers 
associated with logistics , certain  sector specific rules would also be helpful in eliminating existing  
bottlenecks. The Indian proposal could be conceived  not only as a parallel agreement to TFA but 
also as one complimentary to it.  
1.68.   The represent ative of India thanked the 27 delegations that had reacted to India 's 
presentation of its Concept  Note. The  valuable comments , questions and suggestions  made by 
other Members  had fulfilled  a purpose behind this Concept  Note which had been  meant to trigger a 
discussion which would  lead to a careful deliberation  and could result in the develop ment of a 
framework under which Members could effectively address the issues set out  in the Concept  Note. 
She would not attempt to address all the comments received at t he present meeting. O ne question 
that had been raised by several delegations related to the appropriateness of the trade facilitation 
model for the services environment . India recognise d that there was no one -size-fits-all approach 
and there could be no me chanic transfer of the trade facilitation concept into another setting. The 
Concept  Note itself  acknowle dged that modifications and adaptations were necessary to fit the 
services context. As a developing country, India recognise d problems in terms of imple menting 
certain disciplines which could be difficult for developing countries in terms of the resources and 
the manpower available . India therefore believe d that a development section w ould be necessary 
for accommodating  the lesser developed countries and the developing countries. The form and 
content of the development section should evolve from the discussions ; India was open to look at 
either the 2009 or TFA model s, or any other model which suit ed the purpose.  Another question 
related to possible overlap s between certain areas such as e-commerce  and the domestic 
regulation mandate. She recalled that the idea behind this proposal was to facilitate trade in 
services. India had not looked at the proposal as an  e-commerce or investment initiative. Rather, 
the idea had been  to facilitate trade in services in its various modes of supply, to look at  the 
regulations that affected  all modes of supply and to see whether something could be done to 
streamline them  and to  remove the bottle necks . India was  looking at i t from the point of view of 
the services negotiations. With regard to the question of forum , she had already indicated her 
delegation's flexibility, but as the proposal was a services proposal, a services body was the 
appropriate forum for discussion . 
1.69.   As for next steps, she inform ed Members that India was working on a detailed note which 
could also include textual suggestions and further elaboration of the points that had been set out 
in the concept N ote. Her delegation would reflect on how best to incorpor ate the comments and 
questions received into a follow -up paper. There was no fixed  date or time when th at next paper 
would  come, but as her delegation was working on it she hoped to do it as soon as possible. In the 
meantime , she would continue discussions  with any delegations that had further questions and 
comments.  
1.70.   The Chairperson  thanked  all Members for their positive and constructive  interventions . She 
noted that discussion s on the two communications were in a preliminary phase and that many 
delegations  had expressed a need for further study of the proposals in capital.  With regard to the 
communication by co -sponsors, she noted the wish by several delegations to discuss the 
substance of the paper in more detail, and would consult on an appropriate time t o organize an 
open-ended informal meeting . As for the communication by India, the substantive questions and 
comments had indicated interest and engagement on the part of the membership. Several 
Members had called  upon India to provid e a more detailed propo sal as soon as possible so as to 
allow Members to  fully appreciate  the concepts and ideas pursu ed by its  proposal on trade 
facilitation in services. As India had signalled that it was working on such a proposal, she 
encouraged Members to continue discussin g the issues among themselves  in the meantime. She 
suggested that the Working Party take note of the statements made.  
1.71.   It was so agreed . S/WPDR/M/ 68 
 
- 13 - 
 
  2  ITEM B – FUTURE WORK AND TIMI NG OF THE NEXT MEETI NG;  
2.1.  The Chairperson  stated that the item appeared on the agenda in thi s new format in response  
to concern s expressed at the last Services Council meeting with respect to the frequency  of 
meetings of the subsidiary bodies in the current circumstances. As could be seen under the 
previous agenda item, substantive proposals were  made in the WPDR, and several delegations had 
indicated that additional proposals would be forthcoming.  In reacting to the proposals, a number of 
delegations indicated that their reactions were of a preliminary nature, and that their capitals were 
studyin g the proposals. At this stage, she suggested that the next meeting of the Working Party 
take place during the next cluster, later in the year.   
2.2.  It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C – OTHER BUSINES S 
3.1.  No matters were  raised under 'Other Business'.  
 
__________