WT/MIN(17)/ 19, JOB/GC/ 168 
JOB/TNC/ 70, JOB/SERV/276  
 
5 December 2017  
(17-6707) Page: 1/4 
Ministerial Conference  
Eleventh Session  
Buenos Aires, 10 -13 December 2017  Original: English  
 
DISCIPLINES ON DOMES TIC REGULATION  
COMMENTS BY INDIA ON  CO-SPONSORS ' TEXT ON DISCIPLINES  ON DOMESTIC REGULATI ON 
(WT/MIN (17)/7; WT/GC/190)  
The following submission, dated 5 December 2017, is being circulated to the Working Party on 
Domestic Regulation, the Council for Trade in Services, the Council for Trade in Services in Special 
Session, the Trade Negotiations Committee and the General Coun cil, at the request of the 
delegation  of India . 
1  INTRODUCTION  
Service suppliers , particularly those of developing country Members face numerous difficulties 1.1.  
in complying with complex domestic regulations brought out by developed country Members. In 
this reg ard, we want to particularly emphasize the hurdles faced by natural persons supplying 
services in foreign jurisdictions. We urge co -sponsors to recall the disciplines relating to the 
accountancy sector which were developed by the erstwhile Working Party on  Professional Services 
(WPPS).  
We have therefore engaged constructively with proponents on development of DR disciplines 1.2.  
in accordance with the letter and spirit of the GATS. The co -sponsors are requested to recall:  
i. India's detailed opening remarks delivered during the WPDR meeting on 2 -4 October 2017, 
as contained in document RD/SERV/146;  
 
ii. India's textual proposals together with the rationale for the proposed changes on the 
consolidated text tabled by the proponents (JOB/SERV/268), as con tained in d ocument 
RD/SERV/145.  
 
iii. India's detailed comments on the revised consolidated text tabled by the proponents 
(JOB/SERV/272), as contained in document RD/SERV/149.  
We engaged in the process in good faith and also tabled textual suggestions (based on earlier 1.3.  
substantial work done in the WPDR) which should have been acceptable to the proponents. 
However, the latest revised text of the proponents contained in document WT/MIN(17)/7 
dated  1 December  2017 neither provides clarity in many areas where requested nor do es it include 
provisions that are essential for us.  
The following are our specific comments on the co-sponsors ' text on Disciplines on Domestic 1.4.  
Regulation (WT/MIN (17)/7; WT/GC/190) : 
2  SECTION ON GENERAL P ROVISIONS  
According to us, the present format and structure is not as per the mandate provided by 2.1.  
GATS VI:4. The mandate is for disciplines on five specific areas, namely Licensing Requirements 
(LR), Licensing Procedures (LP), Qualification Requirements (QR), Qualif ication Procedures (QP) 
and Technical Standards (TS) and not on authorisation and the various themes developed by 
proponents. It appears to us that the proponents are trying to develop theme based disciplines on WT/MIN(17)/ 19 • JOB/GC/ 168 • JOB/TNC/ 70 • JOB/SERV/276  
 
- 2 - 
 
  "authorisation " which is actually included i n Article VI: 3 of the GATS. We are very clear that the 
mandate for negotiations is contained in Articl e VI:4 and not VI:3. Article VI: 3 has rather clear 
obligations to inform the applicant of the decision concerning the application, and at the request of 
the applicant provide, without undue delay, information concerning the status of the application. 
Other than these two obligations, there are neither other disciplines nor mandate for disciplines on 
authorization. Providing a definition for authorisation do es not resolve the problem. Thus, it is our 
considered view that we cannot agree to the present approach of the proponents which is not as 
per the GATS VI :4 mandate.  
It is also regrettable that proponents have not found it worthwhile to include definition s of 2.2.  
the five mandated areas of LR, LP, QR, QP and TS, four of which were agreed earlier on an ad 
referendum basis. 
We feel that we need to go back to the significant work done in developing the DR  Chair's 2.3.  
Report of 2009 and  2011.  
3  SECTION ON ADMINISTR ATION OF MEASURES  
As clarified in the earlier section, we are convinced that the scope of disciplines around 3.1.  
authorisation can be much broader and even different than the mandate provided by Article VI:4 
of the GATS.  
It is also unfortunate that the proponents have not incorporated any of India 's suggestions on 3.2.  
Recognition , which were based on the DR texts of 2009 and 2011. Disciplines on QR are critical for 
ensuring commercially meaningful access for foreign professionals. Withou t commercially 
meaningful disciplines on QR, the DR disciplines will have negligible value for India 's service 
suppliers and service suppliers from other developing countries and LDCs which have a specific 
interest in Mode 4.  Recalling the history of DR negotiations, WTO Members had negotiated 
Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector (contained in document S/L/64) 
in 1998. In fact the WPDR was earlier called the Working Party on Professional Services (WPPS) . It 
is a poignant reminder of how far we have moved away from the desired and intended mandate 
and the complete lack of willingness to correct ourselves.  
4  SECTION ON INDEPENDE NCE  
The co -sponsors have not been able to convince us of the meaning and the va lue addition of 4.1.  
their proposal on independence. The proposal appears to be half baked and lacks a sound and 
convincing basis. Specifically, we are unable to comprehend the difference between the co -
sponsors ' proposal and GATS VI:1 obligations of 'impartial ity' on the one hand and concept of 
'operational independence ' of paragraph 18 of the 2009/2011 Chair 's text on the other.  
5  SECTION ON TRANSPARE NCY  
We request proponents to once again refer to India 's textual proposals contained in 5.1.  
document RD/SERV/145 which have not been considered. The following are some of the key 
issues:  
i. We believe, publication in one of the official languages of the WTO should be an 
important value addition. We note reservations from some Members on this issue 
and we appreciate thei r concerns. This provision will also be difficult for India given 
that the many states and local level governments in India have their own local 
languages and dialects. Yet, we see great merit in this proposal. As part of the TFA, 
we have all anyway undert aken this obligation.  
ii. On the issue of mechanisms to respond to queries from service suppliers, we cannot 
accept dilution of GATS obligation of 'contact points ' on developed countries through 
DR disciplines in the name of resource constraints. Paragraph 1. 3 is not particularly 
helpful when footnote 5 clearly dilutes obligations on developed countries arising out 
of GATS Article IV:2.  WT/MIN(17)/ 19 • JOB/GC/ 168 • JOB/TNC/ 70 • JOB/SERV/27 6 
 
- 3 - 
 
  iii. On 'opportunity to comment and information before entry into force ', we request 
proponents to reflect on our textual proposa ls and suggestions m ade vide document 
RD/SERV/145.  
6  SECTION ON TECHNICAL  STANDARDS  
We had made a specific proposal on TS based on the DR Chair 's Text (vide RD/SERV/145); 6.1.  
proponents have not found it worthy enough for inclusion.  
We reiterate, we are unable  to understand why out of the five mandated areas of GATS VI:4, 6.2.  
proponents have included a separate section only for TS? Are other mandated areas not important 
enough for dedicated disciplines? These questions have not been answered by the proponents.  
7  DEVELOPMENT OF MEASU RES  
The current text, as it stands, in fact each of the sub -paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of 7.1.  
paragraph 6.1 according to us, reflect a complete distortion of the GATS VI:4 mandate and are 
completely unacceptable. In brief:  
i. On 6.1 (a), competence  and ability to supply a service  should be the main 
consideration for objective and transparent criterion, as clearly mandated in the 
GATS; on the other hand, the proponents ' text includes reference to irrelevant and 
extraneous conditions related to  health and environment;  
ii. The implications of sub -paragraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 6.1 vis -a-vis the GATS 
VI:4 mandate are not clear;  
iii. As regards the necessity test, India agrees there is a mandate and our suggestion is 
clearly captured in the document RD /SERV/145 . Unfortunately, the co -sponsors have 
not found it worthy enough for consideration.  
8  SECTION ON GENDER (W OMEN 'S ECONOMIC EMPOWERME NT) 
India has maintained that while we strongly support gender equality in all areas, we cannot 8.1.  
agree with proponents  that gender is a trade related issue which can be meaningfully addressed 
through DR disciplines.  
9  SECTION ON DEVELOPME NT  
It is disappointing that proponents have completely distorted the import of India 's textual 9.1.  
proposal on development and diluted it to a 'best endeavour ' language on S&DT for developing 
countries. While we had proposed that developing countries shall not be required to apply these 
disciplines for a period of [x] years, the proposal now s tates that developing countries "may" delay 
entry into force of specified provisions for some years. This approach to S&D is not acceptable to 
India.  
We also note that our proposals, for reduced administrative fees for service suppliers from 9.2.  
developing co untry Members and phased/gradual introduction of new LRP, QRP and TS in service 
sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing country Members  have not been 
included. We see merit in these proposals and request proponents to reconsider our su ggestions 
based on the 2009/2011 DR Chair 's Texts.  
It is also unfortunate that developed countries do not appear to be sincere on provision of 9.3.  
technical assistance to developing countries and LDCs, as is evident from the best endeavour 
language of paragrap h 7.3.  
10  WAY FORWARD  
We have engaged constructively and in an open manner with the proponents of the 10.1.   
domestic regu lation disciplines under GATS. India had made textual suggestions (contained in 
RD/SERV/145) and offered detailed comments (contained in RD/SER V/149) in an effort to bridge WT/MIN(17)/ 19 • JOB/GC/ 168 • JOB/TNC/ 70 • JOB/SERV/276  
 
- 4 - 
 
  the wide diverge nces which exist in this area. However, we find that the revised text circulated by 
the proponents has not incorporated these suggestions nor does it clarify issues which have been 
raised by a large number of Members including India  and the African Group. It is therefore quite 
clear that this approach will not lead to any fruitful results or outcomes at MC11.  
We are steadfast in our belief that DR issues will have little or no impact on trade in services 10.2.   
unless  specific measures are also taken to address the numerous difficulties whic h natural persons, 
particularly  those from developing countries , face in complying with the complex regulatory 
regimes of developed countries related to recognition of qualification s. 
Another area which is extremely vital for promoting trade in services relates to addressing 10.3.   
entry related 'at the border measures ' for movement of professionals. India's initiative on Trade 
Facilitation in Services (TFS) was a step in this direction to provide a comprehensive basis for 
looking at all issues of services trade in a  balanced and holistic manner. Due to wide divergences 
among Members there cannot be an outcome on Domestic Regulation at MC 11. But we propose 
that there should be a well -structu red post MC 11 Work Programme on services incorporating some 
elements of the Indian proposal for Trade Facilitation in Services, including those related to 
Mode  4, as well as DR disciplines as per the Chair 's Reports of 2009 and 2011. This is crucial for 
developing countries and LDCs which have a specific interest in Mode 4. This, we believe would be 
the best way to move the services agenda forward at Geneva.  
 
 
__________