S/WPDR/ 21 
 
21 November  2017 
(17-6361) Page: 1/3 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation    
 
 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRP ERSON OF THE WORKING  PARTY ON DOMESTIC RE GULATION  
TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN SERVICES  (SPECIAL SESSION)  
 
This report describes the state of play of the Working Party's discussions in fulfilment of the 
mandate to develop any necessary  disciplines to ensure that measures relating to licensing 
requirements and procedures, technical standards and qualification requirements and procedures 
do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services, in accordance with GATS Article VI:4.  
The report is made under my responsibility as the Chairperson of the Working Party on Domestic 
Regulation.  
1  STATE OF PLAY WITH R EGARD TO THE SUBSTAN TIVE DISCUSSIONS  
1.1.  Since the last Ministerial Conference, discussions in the Working Party have resumed on the 
basis of proposals submitted by several Members. An overview of communications submitted to  
the Working Party can be found in the Annual Reports for 2016 (S/WPDR/19) and 2017 
(S/WPDR/ 20). 
1.2.  At the most recent formal meeting of the Working Party, on 7 and 8 Nove mber 2017, a 
revised text proposal by co -sponsors for disciplines on domestic regulation was discussed1, along 
with text submissions by the Russian Federation2 and India3.  
1.3.  The proposal by co -sponsors contains seven sections: Section 1  - General Provisions ; 
Section  2 - Administration of Measures ; Section 3  - Independence ; Section 4  - Transparency ; 
Section  5 - Technical Standards ; Section 6  - Development of Measures ; and Section 7 - 
Development.  Section 6  on Development of Measures contains two paragraphs  that are supported 
by a sub -set of co -sponsors , namely a proposal on Gender Equality and a proposal for a Necessity 
Test.  
1.4.  The Communication by India was submitted with reference to an earlier proposal by co -
sponsors (JOB/SERV/268), and contains comments and  textual suggestions on all sections of the 
co-sponsors' proposal. The Communication by the Russian Federation proposes several 
amendments and modifications to the most recent proposal by co -sponsors (JOB/SERV/272). The 
specific amendments and modification s relate to the sections on administration of measures, 
transparency, development of measures, and development.  
1.5.  Co-sponsors consider their proposal to be realistic and balanced. For these delegations, 
transparent and predictable rules on licensing and qual ification requirements and procedures, and 
technical standards are important to help service suppliers realize existing market access 
commitments. They believe that the proposed disciplines, together with flexibilities embedded in 
many of the provisions, w ould allow implementation by Members at different levels of development 
and regulatory capacity, and following diverse regulatory approaches. Further flexibility would be 
                                               
1 JOB/SERV/272/Rev.1, dated 7 November 2017; Communication from Argentina; Australia; Canada; 
Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; the European Un ion; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Kazakhstan; the 
Republic of Korea; Liechtenstein; Mexico; the Republic of Moldova; New Zealand; Norway; Switzerland; 
Chinese Taipei,  Turkey; Ukraine and Uruguay – Disciplines on Domestic Regulation . 
2 JOB/SERV /273, dated 3 November 2017; Communication from the Russian Federation - Proposed 
amendments and modifications  to communication JOB/SERV/272 . 
3 RD/SERV/145, dated 29 September 2017; Communication from India – India's comments on 
Communication JOB/SERV/268 – Disciplines on Domestic Regulation.  S/WPDR/21  
 
- 2 - 
 
  provided in their view through a proposed development chapter which allows for transi tion periods 
for specified provisions for developing country Members. Least -developed country Members would 
not be required to apply the disciplines, and would be able to avail themselves of transition periods 
upon their graduation from LDC status.  
1.6.  Many d elegations engaged  on the propos al by co -sponsors . Some delegations expressed 
varying degrees of general support, pointing to a limited number of drafting and technical issues 
that they wished to see addressed.  
1.7.  Some delegations raised issues  on a wider ra nge of the proposed disciplines . Certain 
provisions were regarded as being too ambitious, while other provisions were considered as not 
being sufficiently ambitio us. Views on the need of including certain provisions in the disciplines 
differed among delega tions. A  range of specific issues were identified by  individual delegations . 
These issues include : the structure and building blocks of the text; the relationship between 
individual provisions and existing obligations in Article VI; language concerning the  right to 
regulate; the scope of application; the link of the disciplines to varying levels of market access 
commitments across the membership; the absence of definitions; the meaning and scope of the 
term authorization; the drafting of flexibility languag e in specific provisions; the absence of specific 
provisions relating to qualification requirements and procedures; the scope of, and need for a 
section on independence; the mechanisms for replying to enquiries by services suppliers; the 
obligation to prov ide information on draft laws and regulation of general application and the 
opportunity to comment; the role of international standards as benchmarks; the relationship of the 
section on development of measures with Article VI:4; the meaning and scope of th e proposed 
discipline to base measures on objective and transparent criteria; the need for inclusion of 
disciplines on gender equality and necessity; and concerns on various  provisions of the 
development section. Some delegations pointed out that a better understanding of some of the 
proposed sections of the text, and the terminology used therein, was required.4 
1.8.  Some Members pointed to fundamental conceptual differences with co -sponsors, and 
questioned the need for the proposed disciplines and the benefits they would bring to developing 
countries and LDCs. In their view, the proposed disciplines would benefit services exporting 
countries, but not importing countries; most developing countries and LDCs, however, were net 
services importers. These delegations also believe that some of the proposed provisions fall 
outside of the mandate of GATS Article VI:4. They are of the view that the proposed disciplines 
would impose a model of regulation that would be incompatible with their development aspirations 
and woul d unduly limit their policy space.  
2  STATE OF PLAY WITH R EGARD TO THE WAY FOR WARD  
2.1.  Following the substantive discussion during the meeting of 7 -8 November 2017, I had 
requested delegations to indicate what work they wished to carry out in the WPDR before the  last 
General Council on 30 November.  
2.2.  Co-sponsors and s ome other Members expressed their wish to continue work on domestic 
regulation disciplines with a view of achieving an outcome at MC11.  Many of these Members called 
for a negotiating text to be produc ed by the Chair to provide an input to the discussion. Some 
Members calling for a negotiating text expressed the view that the discussion should take place at 
a higher  level to address higher level political questions .  
2.3.  Other Members d id not see a prospect  for an outcome in the short term. Some of these 
Members referred to the limited time that was available to bridge differences, while others were of 
the view that work on basis of the proposal by co -sponsors could not lead to an outcome. 
Consequently t hese Members d id not believe that the production of a negotiating text by the Chair 
would be useful . Some  of these delegations suggested continuing discussions on domestic 
regulation after MC11.  
                                               
4 In addition to questions and answers provided by many delegations in the context of the formal 
meetings, the African Group provided "Questions on Domestic Regulation", set out in document JOB/SERV/269, 
dated 27 Septe mber 2017. Co -sponsors of disciplines on Domestic Regulation circulated a communication 
entitled "Responses to Questions on Domestic Regulation" in document JOB/SERV/270, dated 
12 October  2017.  S/WPDR/21  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4.  In light of the disagreement on how to proceed in the coming wee ks I did not see scope to 
prepar e a negotiating text under my own responsibility . I emphasized that I would remain 
available for consultations with any delegation wishing to pursue the discussions in the coming 
weeks. It is my understanding that co -sponsor s are continuing to reach out to other delegations 
with a view to increasing support for their proposal.  
 
__________