RESTRICTED  
  
S/C/M/12 9 
 
30 January  2017 
(17-0597) Page: 1/24 
Council for Trade in Services    
 
REPORT OF THE MEETIN G HELD ON 25 NOVEMBER 2016 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 25 November 2016, chaired by Amba ssador 
Gustavo Vanerio (Uruguay) . The agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/ CTS/9. 
The agenda was adopted . 
1  ITEM A – ANNUAL REPORTS OF TH E SUBSIDIARY BODIES TO THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN SERVICES  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that, i n accordance with WTO reporting procedures, the Council for 
Trade in Services was to consider the annual rep orts of its subsidiary  bodies. Accordingly, he drew 
delegations' attention to the reports which had  just been a dopted by the bodies in question, 
namely: the Annual Report of the Committee on Trade in Financial Services (S/FIN/3 1); the 
Annual Report of the Committee on Specific Commitments (S/CSC/2 2); the Annual Report of the 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation (S/WPDR/1 9); and the Annual Report of the Working Party 
on GATS Rules (S/WPGR/2 7). 
1.2.  He proposed that the Council take note of the four reports on the understanding that th ey 
would be annexed to the Annual Report of the Council and form an integral part of it.  
1.3.  It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B – ANNUAL REPORT OF THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  SERVICES TO THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL  
2.1.  The Chairman  indicated that,  in accordance with WTO reporting pro cedures, the Council for 
Trade in Services was to  report each year to the General Council on its activities as well as those in 
its subsidiary bodies. Accordingly, he drew Members' attention to the Council's draft Annual Report 
for 2016, contained in docum ent S/C/W/369. The report was factual and self -explanatory, c overing 
the period since the 201 5 Report up until the meeting held in October 2016. As he had mentioned 
under the previous item, the Annual Reports of the subsidiary bodies would be annexed to th e 
Council's report for submission to the General Council.  
2.2.  He proposed that the Council adopt the draft 201 6 Annual Report to the General Council . 
2.3.  It was so agreed . 
3  ITEM C - NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO ARTICLE S III:3  AND V:7  OF THE GATS  
3.1.  With regard to the not ifications made pursuant to GATS  Article III:3 (transparency), the 
Chairman  drew the Council's attention to the communication received from Norway, in document 
S/C/N/869.  
3.2.  The representative o f Norway  explained that a year earlier her delegation  had contact ed all 
relevant Ministries  to enquire  as to whether there were new regulations which significantly affect ed 
                                                
1 This document 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.  S/C/M/129  
 
- 2 - 
 
  trade in services covered by Norway's  specific commitments. The only M inistry to answer positively 
had been  the Ministry of Finance. However, her de legation had  decided to wait with the notification 
until the measures had been  translated into English.  The Ministry of Finance submitted annually to 
the Parliament a report (a W hite Paper) on developments in Norwegian and inter national financial 
markets. For 2016 , selected sections of the report had been  made available in English. H opefully, 
such translations would  be the norm  henceforth . The webpage had been  mentioned for ease of  
reference.  
3.3.  Chapter 4 of the document provide d a summary of implemented regu latory changes in 2015.  
The most significant new measure was the adoption of the Financial Undertakings Act. The 
Financial Undertakings Act contain ed rules on licensing, organizational  rules, general operational 
rules and rules on guarantees schemes and so lvency failure, as well as provisions on penalties for 
banks, insurance companies and other financial undertakings.  In total, the Ministry of Finance and 
The Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway (Finanstilsynet) had enacted 40 sets of financial 
market  regulations in 2015.  
3.4.  The Chairman  suggested that t he Council t ake note of the notification and statement made.   
3.5.  It was so agreed   
3.6.  Concerning  the notification s made pursuant to GATS Article V:7, the Chairman  drew the 
Council's attention to the communicati ons receive d from  Colombia and th e Republic of Korea 
(S/C/N/868) ; Costa Rica and Colombia (S/C/N/870) ; and Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Peru 
(S/C/N/871).  He suggested that the Council take note of the notifications made, and that the 
agreements notified be referred to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for 
consideration.   
3.7.  It was so agreed .  
4  ITEM D - OPERATIONALIZATION O F THE LDC SERVICES W AIVER  
4.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at the previous  meeting, the LDC Group  had reviewed the 
preferential treatment  in favour of LDC services and service suppliers notified by Turkey, in its 
revised notificati on, and by the European Union. LDCs had also sought a number of clarifications, 
to which Turkey and the EU had provided general responses.  
4.2.  The representative of  Uganda , speaking on behalf of the LDC Group, announced that he 
would be presenting the Group's  review of Canada’s notification. LDCs thank ed Canada for its 
revised submission , which now expressly state d that it notified  "preferential treatment " for LDCs. 
The notification  also appe ared to clearly identify areas which were specifically preferential for 
LDCs, in accordance with the requirements of the waiver.  It stated that it  covered  both market 
access and national treatment preferential measures for LDC supp liers and that  existing horizontal 
limitations in the GATS, including MFN exemptions , remain ed in force.  
4.3.  Approximately  21 subsectors were notified as preferential . Most were drawn from Canada’s 
DDA offer. Five we re new , in the sense that they were not foun d in Canada's  DDA offer or  in its 
existing GATS sched ule. The LDC Group welcomed  preferences  that went  beyond the content of 
Canada's  DDA offer,  such as in translation and interpretation services.  
4.4.  The Group wished to seek some clarification s on the notifi cation. R egarding the preference 
for architectural services, could Canada confirm that it had removed the citizenship restriction for 
Quebec?  Could Canada confirm that the preference notified in veterinary services was not 
currently inscribed  in Canada ’s existing GATS schedule or DDA offer?  Further on veterinary 
services, could Canada clarify, for the market acc ess and national treatment entries for Alberta , 
who were "persons lawfully admitted into and entitled to work in Canada",  and what "satisfactory 
evidence" meant ? Ontario and Yukon appear ed to have similar stipulations but indicate d different 
bases for defining such status.  
4.5.  LDCs appreciate d Canada’s preference in 'Franchising related to non -financial intangible 
assets (CPC 8929*) ', which did not appea r to be in Canada’s DDA offer or GATS schedule. As 
CPC 8929 was related to intell ectual property right royalties, the Group wondered if Canada might  S/C/M/129  
 
- 3 - 
 
  be attempting a creative preference for franchising services in that regard , related to a small 
aspect foun d in the LD C Collective Request on TRIPS. Could Canada elaborate further on how they 
saw that preference operating and LDC service supplier s taking  advantage of it? 
4.6.  There we re instances where Canada ha d provided preferences involving  the removal of 
restric tions in  certain P rovinces, some of which had been  offered by Canada in its DDA offer. LDCs 
appreciate d those preferences . For example, the Group welcomed  the removal of the national 
treatment , mode 3 , deposit restriction in Newfoundland for 'Construction work for buildings, 
including for multi -dwelling buildings, warehouses and commercial buildings '. It also welcome d the 
removal of the m ode 3 Ontario requirement of incorporation for a holder of waterpower site 
development permit, in 'General construction w ork for civil engineering '.   
4.7.  There we re a few elements  in the notification  that appear ed to be the same as Canada’s 
existing GATS Schedule. Since these were notified as preferential for LDCs, could Canada confirm 
that indeed these and other preferences were only provided to LDC suppliers or were FTA 
preferences that were extended to LDCs as well?  If some of tho se entries were in Canada’s 
existing GATS schedule or otherwise already applied in practice, did Canada agree that invoking 
the waiver mean t that Canada had to give preferential treatment to LDCs over non -LDC suppliers?   
4.8.  For any of the preferences notified in relation to  national tre atment residency requirements, 
was Canada ready to provide technical assistance to furnish residency permits for LDC ser vices 
suppliers who we re able to attract Canadian consumers to provide their services?  
4.9.  Finally, i n furtherance of paragraph 1.4 of the Nairobi  Decision to implement the LDC services 
waiver, was Canada building awareness among its potential consumers of pre ferences provided in 
its notification , as well as with potential LDC suppliers in LDC countries? What activities did Canada 
have planned to help orient LDC services suppliers in LDCs about the benefits of the preferential 
treatment provided by its revised notification?  
4.10.   The representative of Canada  said that his delegation appreciated the LDC  Group 's 
continued interest in Canada's notification and very much welcomed the collaborative approach of 
the Group in the follow -up process. He was pleased to provide a s much clarification as he could at 
that meeting. Some of the more technical questions were still being considered in capital and he 
would follow -up on those bilaterally.  
4.11.   First, he could confirm that the citizenship requirement for architectural services f or Quebec  
had been removed. Second, he could also confirm that the commitments for veterinary services 
did not appear in Canada's GATS schedule and were a "GATS plus" element. Third, there were 
elements in the notification that replicated Canada's GATS com mitments. This was because the 
approach used had been to draft the notification in the format of a GATS schedule that included 
those  sectors where there were "GATS plus" preferences, but for each sector the breadth of 
Canada's commitments had been included  as well. There were cases were the treatment was the 
same as the GATS commitments because Canada already had a fully committed subsector or mode 
within the sector and it was not possible to provide preferential treatment in that context. Fourth, 
Aid-for-Trade was an important tool that could complement the waiver preferences notified. In 
2014-15, Canadian spending on Aid -for-Trade had been just over CAN$ 430 million, around 40% 
of which went to LDCs ; Canada was committed to continuing with that programme . An interesting 
example was Canada's "Digital livelihoods: youth and future of work at scale" project; this was a 
CAN$ 15 million project which had begun in November 2015 and was benefitting nine countries, 
including four LDCs. The project would help up 200 '000 young women and men build 
entrepreneurial and job scales and use technology to increase their incomes and employment 
opportunities. He had also taken note of the interest of the LDC Group in promoting the 
opportunities provided under the waiver throug h Canada's Aid -for-Trade programming and would 
report this back to capital to increase awareness of those opportunities.  
4.12.   The representative of Uganda  thanked Canada for the responses provide d and looked 
forward to  a continued  engag ement .  
4.13.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the s tatements made  and said that 
the Council would  revert to that  item at its next meeting.  
4.14.   It was so agreed . S/C/M/129  
 
- 4 - 
 
  5  ITEM  E – WORK PROGRAMME  ON ELECTRONIC  COMMERCE  
5.1.  The Chairman  indicated that there were several elements to be addressed under this agenda 
item. First, he recalled that, at the October meeting, a group of Members had proposed that the 
Council hold a thematic seminar on e -commerce (document RD/SERV/133/Rev.2). He indicated 
that, at the informal meeting held on 16 No vember, there appeared to be no objection to the 
Council holding the proposed seminar. However, more discussion was clearly needed.  While a few 
delegations had offered comments and suggestions on the proposed agenda, a few others had said 
that they would revert to it.  Several Members had called for the seminar to focus exclusively on 
services issues, remain strictly within the confines of the Work Programme, and provide 
exclusively an experience and information -sharing platform.  
5.2.  The Chairman also recalle d that, at the end of the informal meeting, Chinese Taipei had 
asked if the Secretariat could prepare a draft programme for the seminar, in light of the comments 
received at that meeting.  While stating its readiness to help, the Secretariat had indicated that 
needed further guidance from Members to prepare a draft programme.  Therefore, he suggested 
focusing on the proposed agenda for the seminar.  
5.3.  The representative of Ukraine  indicated that his delegation supported the convening of a 
thematic seminar on e -commerce. His delegation echoed other Members' statements regarding the 
importance and relevance of the issue and underlined that the seminar would be a good 
opportunity to reduce the knowledge gap on the subject. Ukraine considered that the seminar 
would  be more comprehensive if it covered topics such as cross -border e -commerce, 
harmonization of legislation, regulatory aspects, main challenges for businesses and governments, 
as well as online trade dispute resolution systems, including relevant legal and technical aspects.  
5.4.  The representative of South Africa  said that, as indicated in the informal meeting, his 
delegation had no objections to the proposed seminars on e -commerce and barriers to mode  4, 
respectively. However, he wished to make some proposals to the draft agendas. His delegation 
viewed e -commerce from a development perspective and wished the agenda to reflect that 
viewpoint. His delegation considered that the proposed agenda was too broad. Firstly, references 
to TPP and other agreements that we re not in force, and might not come into force, should not 
find their way into the seminar. South Africa was not certain about their relevance and had 
concerns with the presumption that bilateral and regional trade agreements had in some way 
become a refer ence point for work in the WTO. Secondly, discussions should focus on policies 
Members used to build capacity in the area of e -commerce. Thirdly, on session III, "Evolving 
regulatory responses", his delegation recognized the serious challenges that new tec hnologies 
posed on regulatory authorities. In that vein, the seminar should  examine recent case law 
reported in some jurisdictions, which could provide insights on the implications of new 
technologies, platforms and business practices in areas such as tax avoidance, anti -competitive 
practices and labour conditions. Finally, he reiterated that the outcomes of both seminars should 
be seen as an exchange of views and should in no way determine steps towards negotiating rules 
in the WTO.  
5.5.  The representative of Argentina  expressed once more his delegation's support for the 
discussions on e -commerce and considered the proposal on the seminar positive. His delegation 
was consulting with national authorities to determine whether there were other topics which could 
be added to the agenda and, if so, would make relevant suggestions.  
5.6.  The representative of Nigeria  reiterated his delegation's support for the seminar, taking into 
account the various comments and observations raised by Members, particularly on how to 
enhanc e the seminar in a way that delivered all of its objectives. He took note of the fact that the 
aim of the seminar was to explore the delicate balance between further unleashing the potential of 
e-commerce and fulfilling legitimate regulatory objectives. In  particular, he echoed South Africa's 
comments on the importance of the development aspects of e -commerce. The seminar should be 
without prejudice of Members' positions in the negotiations and should not be related to the 
negotiations. With regard to scope  and participation, all sides should be represented. Although, for 
the time being, his delegation had no specific suggestions, he looked forward to making 
contributions, as appropriate, in the future.   S/C/M/129  
 
- 5 - 
 
  5.7.  The representative of Switzerland  said that the propo sal was clear and welcomed the fact 
that the seminar would take place in the context of the CTS. He hoped that Members would be 
able to agree upon the agenda, bearing in mind the various statements made during the meeting.  
5.8.  The representative of Norway  indicated that a number of Members had put forward 
submissions on e -commerce that year. The MIKTA e -commerce seminar, which had taken place in 
July, had underlined the ever -increasing importance of e -commerce for trade, economic growth 
and development. She in dicated that useful discussions were taking place in various Committees 
and thanked the sponsors for the proposed seminar. Norway also looked forward to the one -day 
seminar on e -commerce and development to be held in December. Members' engagement showed 
that there was interest and willingness to advance work on e -commerce.  
5.9.  The representative of Uruguay  said that there was an on -going interest in e -commerce, as 
observed during the informal consultations. The proposed seminar, as wel l as the suggested 
approac h, were  very interesting and the time was appropriate to discuss them.  
5.10.   The representative of India indicated that, at that stage, his delegation was open to the 
possibility of the seminar. He echoed South Africa's comments on the content of the agenda and  
looked forward to working on the agenda in terms of specific concerns and other issues. Overall, 
India saw the seminar as an experience -sharing exercise of a technical nature, within the mandate 
of the Work Programme. India also looked forward to hearing Members' views on the other 
proposed seminar, on barriers to mode 4. He wished Members would react in a holistic manner to 
the proposed seminars.  
5.11.   The representative of the European Union  indicated that his delegation was very supportive 
of the dedicated se minar on e -commerce. As seen in the communication sent by the proponents, 
considerable work had been done to highlight some of the topics that could be discussed in the 
seminar. Session I, on "The opportunities and challenges of services e -commerce in the market 
place", was certainly very important. From his delegation's perspective, the focus of the discussion 
should be on trade disciplines and regulatory responses that countries had adopted to develop e -
commerce. It could start by looking at what already existed in terms of GATS disciplines, the GATS 
environment, and then possibly looking at specific Members' experiences, including their existing 
regulatory frameworks, trade agreements and domestic regimes to facilitate e -commerce. The 
seminar could be use d to have a better sense of the rule -book to facilitate e -commerce, 
particularly for SMEs. He considered the second point made by South Africa, concerning policies 
that Members used to build capacity in the area of e -commerce, to be an interesting angle to  bring 
to the discussion.  
5.12.   The representative of Canada  reiterated his delegation's support for the proposed seminar. 
Canada was open to working with Members on structuring an agenda that worked for everyone.  
Noting Members' interest in pursuing a bottom -up approach to e -commerce discussions, his 
delegation wished to see the seminar under the CTS focus on services and GATS -related issues.  
5.13.   The representative of China  said that his delegation supported information and experience -
sharing on e -commerce among Me mbers. Given that e -commerce was a multi -dimensional issue, 
Members should not limit their discussion to a specific framework. Therefore, seminars could also 
be organized under the Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee on Trade and Development, 
to help Members achieve a better understanding of e -commerce from all relevant perspectives.  
His delegation had made a suggestion for the Council for Trade in Goods to organize a workshop 
focused on cross -border trade in goods enabled by the Internet and enco uraged Members to 
consider its suggestion.  
5.14.   The representative of New Zealand  indicated that his delegation supported further 
information exchange on e -commerce in the context of the Council and the proposed seminar. 
Regarding the agenda, most elements wer e certainly relevant, particularly looking at the 
opportunities and challenges of e -commerce as well as understanding regulatory responses for 
purposes of filling gaps.  While understanding that the rule -making environment was important, 
based on what had been said over the year, there was a gap not only in terms of how the rules 
were applied but also in terms of how Members were responding to e -commerce and what were 
the unique regulatory challenges faced by the global e -commerce environment.  For that rea son, 
his delegation considered sessions I and III of the proposed agenda especially important. S/C/M/129  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Nevertheless, his delegation also supported discussions and improving Members' understanding of 
the rule -making environment.  
5.15.   The representative of Paraguay  said that his delegation had co -sponsored the proposal. He 
informed the Council that a regional workshop on e -commerce and its role in development in 
Latin-America had taken place on 19 and 20 of October 2016 in Paraguay. It had been organized 
with the support  of the WTO and had counted with the participation of governmental bodies, the 
private sector and multilateral organizations. The workshop had addressed similar issues as those 
contained in the agenda of the proposed seminar and had resulted in valuable re commendations. 
His delegation believed that the proposed seminar would also contribute to discussions taking 
place in the WTO.  
5.16.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  indicated that his delegation 
considered seminars and experience -sharing  to be positive contributions to e -commerce 
discussions. The proposed seminar should be circumscribed to what was contained in the mandate 
of the WTO's Work Programme. Bolivia was flexible, but had some comments on the proposed 
agenda. The chapeau of sessi on I referred to the opportunities and challenges of services e -
commerce, but then the proposal mentioned only the opportunities and benefits of e -commerce 
and mentioned only regulatory challenges for consumers. It was important to strike a balance in 
order to understand both opportunities and challenges, especially for developing countries. His 
delegation echoed South Africa's comments to the effect that it would be useful to analyse tax 
issues related to e -commerce, anti -competitive practices and recent c ase law. The proposed 
seminar should not form the basis for any rules negotiations in the WTO.  
5.17.    The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his delegation 
considered the proposed seminar as an interesting opportunity to exchange ex periences from a 
GATS perspective within the mandate of the e -commerce Work Programme. Like South Africa, he 
stressed that the seminar should not be used as a basis for future WTO negotiations.  
5.18.   The representative of Turkey  said that her delegation support ed the proposed seminar.  The 
workshop on e -commerce organized by the MIKTA countries had been very informative and 
fruitful. The proposed CTS thematic seminar on e -commerce would supplement that workshop. 
Turkey was ready to work with the proponents.  
5.19.   The representative of Ecuador  said that his delegation was in favour of holding the seminar 
as it was useful for all Members to understand new elements and technologies. His delegation 
stood ready to work constructively on the agenda of the seminar, which shou ld not be used as the 
foundation for future negotiations given that there was no negotiating mandate on the issue.  
5.20.   The representative of Egypt  shared the views of previous delegations who had taken the 
floor, especially those from developing countries, an d particularly South Africa. In principle, as 
indicated at the informal session, his delegation supported the proposed seminar. There was a 
need for brainstorming on the relationship between e -commerce and services. He thanked the 
Secretariat for organizin g the briefing session on 24 November which had provided useful 
background on e -commerce and services. It was important that discussions help clarify the 
implications of e -commerce for developing countries, especially e -commerce imports. It was also 
import ant to bridge the knowledge gap that existed on the implementation side of e -commerce, 
particularly lessons learned and best -practices from industry itself. He cited the example of 
Amazon's vision on easy and reliable drone delivery, which could be helpful  for developing 
countries. As to the agenda and the challenges faced by developing countries, relevant questions 
to be addressed could include the implications of e -commerce for domestic services suppliers, how 
much digital advances could change production  and trade patterns, and challenges related to 
regional markets and integration in the face of increasing cross -border e -commerce.  
5.21.   The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation supported the proposed seminar with all 
the caveats raised by several delegations about characterizing the seminar "as a seminar", with no 
negotiating implications. His delegation believed that the same ground rules should apply both to 
the proposed seminar on e -commerce and the one on mode  4. Regarding the proposed agenda, 
Brazil had already provided comments at the informal meeting and would be in contact directly 
with the proponents.  S/C/M/129  
 
- 7 - 
 
  5.22.   The representative of Uganda  said that his delegation had no objection to holding the 
seminar. There was a knowledge gap on e -commerce and hi s country was in the process of 
learning; as such, sharing experiences and practices was important. He emphasised that the 
agenda of the seminar should remain within the scope of the WTO: issues such as taxation were 
not handled in the WTO. He echoed the c omments made by South Africa regarding TPP and mega -
regionals, namely that Members should not use the e -commerce seminar as a basis for 
negotiations, and that the proposed seminar on mode 4 should be treated equally. In their 
collective request, LDCs had e xpressed a significant interest in mode 4 and looked forward to 
sharing experiences in that area, including as concerned challenges and constraints. In the context 
of discussions on the LDC waiver, some Members had asked for evidence -based cases; the mode  4 
seminar could help to make a case and move deliberations forward.  
5.23.   The representative of Nigeria  said it was important to have clarity about participation in the 
seminar in terms of "representativeness". He wished his region to be represented but there wa s no 
indication that this would be the case. He enquired how the regional perspective would be taken 
into account across -the-board. While his region was not that advanced, it would be beneficial to 
hear its experience and link it to what was happening in t he rest of the world. Besides, he wished 
to know what the proponents meant by "market liberalization facilitating infrastructure 
development" and who would address that type of question and in what context. As for the point 
raised by Egypt, his delegation wished to view it within the broad context of the Work Programme 
itself, without prejudice to Members' positions in terms of moving forward on this issue.  
5.24.   The representative of El Salvador  thanked the Secretariat for the informative briefing 
session on tr ade in services and e -commerce just held, which had been very helpful to better 
understand the relationship between the GATS and e -commerce. It was important to discuss the 
issue, and particularly access to information technologies by developing countries,  a topic which 
could be included in the agenda of the proposed seminar. Only 26% of the population used the 
Internet in El Salvador. Households with Internet access represented 13.9% of the total and 
purchases online accounted only for 7% in 2015. Actual a ccess of small developing countries to e -
commerce and the difficulties they faced in this regard needed to be taken into account.  
5.25.   The representative of Colombia  indicated that, as co -sponsor of the proposal, his delegation 
supported the seminar, which was  very timely for discussions taking place at that moment in the 
WTO. He thanked the Secretariat for organizing the briefing session on trade in services and e -
commerce. The item of the proposed seminar on applicability of the current GATS legal framework 
to e-commerce of the proposed seminar could strongly contribute to discussions taking place at 
that juncture.  
5.26.   The representative of Mexico  thanked the Secretariat for organizing the briefing session on 
trade in services and e -commerce. The information prov ided had been very useful to understand 
the evolution of e -commerce, its relationship with the GATS and the challenges ahead for the 
WTO.  As co -sponsor, her delegation believed that the proposed seminar was balanced and hoped 
that Members would contribute  to the agenda in order for the seminar to take place as soon as 
possible.  
5.27.   The representative of Chile said his delegation supported holding the seminar on e -
commerce, an issue in which the WTO could not remain behind. The seminar would allow for the 
sharing of experiences, good practices and knowledge about innovations taking place in the field. 
The seminar should not lay the basis for future negotiations.  
5.28.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Chairman for his efforts in moving the 
proposal fo rward, including holding the informal meeting. The support and engagement of the 
Membership was very much appreciated. With respect to the agenda of the seminar, her 
delegation welcomed the suggestions made by Members and would be pleased to accommodate 
them, if related to trade in services aspects. She took the opportunity to respond to the questions 
raised by Members. First, with regard to the question from Nigeria about participants from 
different regions, there was flexibility and participation would de pend on the topic and how the 
content of the agenda was organized. Participants could include experts and representatives from 
industries, academia, regulators or international organizations.  Second, regarding the question on 
how market liberalization cou ld facilitate infrastructure development, she took the example used 
by the Secretariat in the briefing session, when it was mentioned that telecommunications were 
key to developing e -commerce. The idea was to listen to Members' experiences on how S/C/M/129  
 
- 8 - 
 
  liberaliz ation commitments could facilitate development of infrastructure and contribute to e -
commerce development.  
5.29.   The representative of Peru indicated that his delegation supported holding the proposed 
seminar, as well as any initiative which could help to reach a consensus on its agenda. He was 
hoping to receive comments from capital in order to contribute to shaping the event.  
5.30.   The representative of Nigeria  wished to follow -up on the reply given by Chinese Taipei. 
Regardless of whether participants were industry  representatives, agencies or others, since the 
idea was sharing experiences, participation should not be limited to given regions. Even if the 
experience of a certain region was relatively limited, it was important to maintain a balanced 
representation to  ensure that the seminar was inclusive. If participation was limited to certain 
regions, this would be a disincentive for engaging in the discussions. An interactive discussion 
would be beneficial for the entire Membership.    
5.31.   The Chairman  thanked all dele gations who had taken the floor for the interesting exchange. 
Many inputs had been received which were very precise and not contradictory. It was necessary to 
take a step forward if the Members wished to move on this matter. He suggested requesting the 
Secretariat to prepare a draft program for the seminar, taking into account the comments made by 
Members.  
5.32.   It was so agreed . 
5.33.   A representative of the Secretariat  said that the exchange had been very useful to clarify 
the different aspects of the proposal, part icularly regarding the three components of the suggested 
programme. The Secretariat would go ahead in preparing the programme and, in the course of its 
preparation, would be consulting with those delegations who had expressed views and interests. 
He also i nvited those delegations who were interested in contributing to shaping the event to 
contact the Secretariat directly. Some adjustment and conceptualization might be required on how 
some of the elements discussed would appear in the draft programme. In thi s regard, he thanked 
delegations in advanced for their indulgence, as preparing the draft programme would likely 
involve a certain degree of judgement. The draft programme prepared by the Secretariat would 
probably need to go through another phase of consu ltations before it could be finally agreed to.  
5.34.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that he was confused about the 
process. He thought that the proponents would gather the comments made on the proposal and 
prepare a revised version , with the support of the Secretariat. His delegation had no problems with 
the proposed seminar taking place. However, given the number of comments made, his delegation 
wished to see some concrete suggestions reflected in the agenda for the seminar before moving 
forward. He requested clarification as to the procedure that would be followed.  
5.35.   The Chairman  indicated that there was no special procedure. Consultations would take place 
as the Council moved forward on the proposed seminar, but certainly Chinese Ta ipei would work 
with the Secretariat on the matter.  
5.36.   He then drew delegations' attention to a second contribution received on the same agenda 
item, from China and Pakistan, which had been issued on 4 November and was contained in 
document JOB/SERV/243/Rev.1 .  
5.37.   The representative of China  said that it was the third time that his delegation had presented 
it to the various subsidiary bodies. He indicated that, along with Pakistan, his delegation had 
jointly submitted a proposal on e -commerce to the General Counc il and three subsidiary bodies, 
including the CTS. Since developing Members constituted the majority of the Membership, e -
commerce discussions should follow the current WTO mandate and focus on the development 
dimension, so as to advance the specific inter ests of developing Members.  
5.38.   At the present stage, discussions should focus on the promotion and facilitation of cross -
border trade in goods enabled by the Internet, together with services directly supporting such 
trade, including payment and logistics ser vices. His delegation did not foresee the discussions 
entailing any new market access commitments. The discussions could help to clarify and improve 
the application of existing multilateral trade rules, with a view to enabling developing Members to 
better participate in and benefit from international trade and global value chains.  S/C/M/129  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.39.   The proposal was divided into three parts, namely introduction, specific elements and 
organization and Secretariat work. In his delegation's view, the most relevant elements regar ding 
the work of the Council for Trade in Services concerned the exchange of information on regulatory 
measures and procedures for supplying services directly supporting cross -border e -commerce 
transactions, including electronic and online payment, logisti cs and courier, online customs 
clearance and other trade facilitation services, as well as the possibility of making them more 
accommodating. Other elements of the proposal which were also relevant to the work of the CTS 
were the promotion of paperless tra de, the exchange of information on policies concerning digital 
certificates, electronic signature and electronic authentication, and promoting mutual recognition 
of digital certificates and electronic signature, as well as their use in cross -border e -comme rce. 
The proposal also encouraged Members to exchange information on laws, regulations and 
administrative measures regarding policy issues relevant to cross -border e -commerce, such as 
consumer protection, privacy protection and intellectual property rights , as well as discuss their 
interface with trade policy, so as to enhance consumer confidence in cross -border e -commerce and 
promote its development. The aspects of the proposal relating to the exchange of information were 
of a cross -cutting nature, but the  services perspective was very important.  
5.40.   The final part of the proposal dealt with organisational issues and Secretariat work. In this 
regard, issues that could be addressed in the CTS were how to stimulate more in -depth discussion 
from the specific persp ective of this Council and how to identify cross -cutting issues which could be 
put forward for further discussion in the General Council or in other fora that might be appropriate.  
5.41.   China was willing to exchange views with Members on how to advance discuss ions on e -
commerce based on its proposal and other proposals that had been submitted. China encouraged 
informal deliberations among Members and looked forward to a constructive discussion of all 
submissions from the specific perspective of the CTS and othe r relevant bodies.  
5.42.   All delegations who took the floor  thanked China and Pakistan for their proposal.  
5.43.   The representative of Nigeria  said that his delegation was still revising the proposal in 
capital and had only preliminary comments at that stage. Starting  with the introduction, the 
proposal stated that discussions at the present stage should focus on the existing mandate, focus 
on areas of common interest, should not lead to new market access commitments and that the 
development dimension should be fully i ncorporated in the outcomes. All these were important 
elements to highlight and his delegation had no difficulties with them.  
5.44.   As to the specific elements of the proposal, particularly points 1.1 to 1.7 on exchange of 
information, in terms of what had been  mentioned by China, his delegation took note of those 
elements. His delegation had no difficulty at that juncture with point 2 on enhancing transparency 
on the policy framework of cross -border e -commerce. Regarding the organization of work and the 
role of  the General Council, his delegation agreed on the need for coordination among the different 
WTO bodies with a mandate on e -commerce. This coordination could be carried out on the basis of 
consultations among the respective Chairs of the bodies concerned a nd the Chair of the General 
Council. His delegation had no difficulties with regard to the suggested work by the Secretariat to 
enhance the capabilities of developing countries to benefit from e -commerce. However, there 
should be clarity on the type of tec hnical support in multilateral discussions that was envisaged.  
5.45.   Finally, more importantly, with regard to the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM), he 
enquired whether the reference to Members' TPR meant that this would take place on a voluntary 
basis. If not, his understanding was that the TPRM was under appraisal. There should be clarity in 
terms of what the mechanism should do and its scope. This would require an amendment of the 
mechanism, Members' obligations and the responsibilities of the Secretariat . Therefore, he asked 
the proponents to clarify what exactly they had in mind concerning the inclusion of e -commerce 
elements in TPRs. It was important to be pragmatic, as it was still unclear what benefits had 
resulted from incorporating Aid for Trade ele ments in the context of the TPRM. To summarize, any 
inclusions should not be burdensome and should add value in terms of ability to benefit from such 
exercise. His delegation was open to initiatives and would continue consulting and reflecting on 
how to co ntinue with those discussions, which would be beneficial for the whole Membership.  
5.46.   The representative of Mexico  said that the proposal was very constructive. It was very 
important to maintain and move forward WTO discussions on e -commerce, with a view to having 
e-commerce as a possible deliverable for the MC11. Her delegation was still analysing China's S/C/M/129  
 
- 10 - 
 
  proposal but had preliminary comments, which had also been raised in the Council on Trade in 
Goods. She noted that several elements of the proposal focused  on goods trade facilitation; while 
those elements were relevant for e -commerce, there were also relevant aspects in the area of 
services which should be deepened.  
5.47.   Some of the elements in the proposal were already contained in the existing agreements. As 
a first step, it was necessary to review which aspects of e -commerce were already covered by the 
GATT, GATS and the TRIPS Agreement, including the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Her delegation 
agreed that discussions on e -commerce should not imply negotiati ons on market access in goods. 
Mexico viewed e -commerce as a tool that could be used to take advantage of existing market 
access. The proposal to enhance transparency was particularly relevant and could be a candidate 
for a potential deliverable for MC11. Concerning the extension of the moratorium on the imposition 
of customs duties on electronic transmissions, her delegation enquired whether China was 
proposing a definitive extension or an extension for a specific period longer than the current one of 
two years. Mexico had proposed to extend the moratorium indefinitely.  
5.48.   Finally, her delegation welcomed the possibility of having a joint meeting of the relevant 
WTO bodies. She agreed with other delegations that the process should not limit discussions, 
particularly considering the horizontal issues involved in e -commerce. Her delegation was open to 
exploring any approach that could facilitate substantive discussions, especially given the interest of 
the private sector, and particularly SMEs, in e -commerce, an d called on Members not to get stuck 
in procedural issues or issues of mandate.  
5.49.   The representative of Singapore , speaking on behalf of ASEAN, said that, without prejudice 
to each ASEAN Member's position, ASEAN remained interested in continuing discussions on e-
commerce in the WTO. ASEAN was confident that the proposal could contribute towards enhancing 
information and experience sharing on e -commerce, to help better understand how the WTO could 
help to achieve countries' trade policy objectives in e -commerc e in accordance with the mandate 
agreed in Nairobi. While ASEAN Members were still consulting with their respective capitals on the 
proposal, he had preliminary general comments which were not necessarily limited to the specific 
elements of the proposal.  
5.50.   ASEAN appreciated the focus on trade facilitation, as the group considered it could bring 
tangible benefits in terms of saving costs, especially for SMEs. He requested clarification on some 
of the elements raised in paragraph 1.1 of the proposal. Firstly, how would the products eligible for 
simplified border measures be identified and how would the establishment of warehouses for B2B 
and B2C be differentiated? Secondly, regarding the reference to electronic platforms or world trade 
platforms (e -WTP), he not ed that this was a private sector initiative which had come out as a B20 
policy recommendation to the G20 in 2016. It seemed an interesting idea and ASEAN requested 
further elaboration from the co -sponsors on the details of the e -WTP and how they envisaged  
synergies with the WTO. Finally, the proposal had also been submitted to the Council for Trade in 
Goods, the Committee on Trade and Development and the General Council, but not to the TRIPS 
Council, which was also a subsidiary body under the Work Programm e. He asked whether the 
proponents were planning to submit the proposal to the TRIPS Council, given that it also contained 
some elements related to intellectual property rights.  
5.51.   The representative of Switzerland  indicated that his delegations welcomed the submission, 
which could help to explore and better understand e -commerce and its effects. At that stage, 
Switzerland welcomed the focus on cross -border trade in goods enabled by the Internet and 
especially on services directly supporting such trade in good s. Those issues could also be 
addressed by the seminar on e -commerce proposed by Chinese Taipei. His delegation shared the 
ambition of upholding the development dimension of e -commerce in the discussion, which should 
be part of any outcome. Regarding proce ss, his delegation supported the suggestion to explore the 
possibility of having an informal joint session of the WTO bodies with a mandate on e -commerce. 
This would allow Members to look at e -commerce in a coherent and meaningful way. In conclusion, 
Switz erland stood ready to engage in active discussions and to contribute to an instructive 
dialogue on e -commerce.  
5.52.   The representative of Brazil  said that, out of all the papers submitted in the context of the 
e-commerce discussions, the submission was the clos est to a proposal. It was the first attempt to 
put isolated ideas into context. By reading the proposal, it was possible to have an idea of what 
delegations were talking about. The focus of the proposal was to start with trade in goods enabled S/C/M/129  
 
- 11 - 
 
  by the Inter net, which was an important part of e -commerce and possibly an easier part, given the 
complexity of the subject. However, it was important to go further and encompass fully trade in 
services as well. The proposal was a cross -cutting proposal, as it contain ed elements on almost 
every aspect of the mandate, but at the same time it was not sufficiently developed in terms of 
services issues. His understanding was that this was the intention behind the proposal.  
5.53.   Turning to the specifics of the proposal, he echo ed Singapore's request for more clarity on 
the details of the e -WTP suggestion. In Brazil's view, tax policies were beyond the scope of the 
WTO so his delegation was not convinced that the subject should be dealt with in that forum. With 
regard to customs clearance, bonded warehouses and trade facilitation, his delegation had no 
problems with considering improvements for e -commerce. However, delegations had to be mindful 
of not creating imbalances between trade enabled by electronic means and "regular" trad e. An 
issue that should be considered and that had been raised many times related to the digital divide 
and the different points of departure of different Members, which was central to this discussion. As 
to the way forward in terms of capacity -building or  cooperation and development in general, he 
suggested that Members could look at Section II of the TFA in order to find inspiration and not 
reinvent the wheel. Finally, as to the organization of work, his delegation fully supported the 
central role of the General Council as well as the suggestion to hold informal joint meetings to 
address cross -cutting topics.  
5.54.   The representative of the European Union  indicated that Members should intensify 
discussions on e -commerce and deepen their understanding of the issu e. He welcomed the 
submission on the Council's agenda, which demonstrated a concrete level of ideas. As 
demonstrated by that submission and from the multitude of submissions tabled over previous 
months, the concept of e -commerce encapsulated many topics. I t was being discussed in the 
services Council, the Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee on Trade and Development. 
His delegation was following the process very carefully and getting ideas to inject into the process. 
Still, it would be important to have a formal horizontal process on e -commerce, whether in the 
form of the Dedicated Discussion or a joint meeting. His delegation was open and flexible on that 
issue, but believed that, at a certain point, a horizontal discussion would be useful. The Euro pean 
Union was still reviewing the communication, and only had a preliminary position to share at that 
stage.  
5.55.   First, as seen in the communication, e -commerce covered a broad range of often complex 
issues, some of which could be addressed at MC11, while ot hers required more time and 
discussion. Second, focusing on the services elements of the paper, his delegation would welcome 
more dialogue with the proponents to better understand the final objective pursued with regard to 
services. China had mentioned in its presentation the possibility of making services more 
accommodating but had said that the paper was not about market access commitments. As such, 
clarification was needed on what would be discussed on the rules side or what outcome was 
pursued in the ca se of services. Some issues in the paper could form part of efforts at the WTO to 
raise the profile of e -commerce, such as rules on e -signatures, e -authentication and recognition of 
electronic contracts. While exchanging information would be useful, discip lines could be expanded 
at a more global level. Consumer protection was also an interesting topic on which his delegation 
would be ready to work further. Third, his delegation agreed with the assessment of the potential 
benefits of e -commerce for developin g countries, and for SMEs in particular, which could be further 
pursued in the WTO. The Aid for Trade framework was also moving in that direction and would 
provide a useful contribution. Fourth, he echoed Mexico's comments on the moratorium on 
customs duti es; there was a strong case to move ahead on that specific topic, and his delegation 
would welcome more discussion on the issue and on the remaining obstacles to make the 
moratorium permanent in the appropriate forum. Fifth, his delegation shared the objec tives of the 
paper on transparency. At the WPDR meeting, delegations recognised the importance of 
transparency in general; in the context of e -commerce, it was of paramount importance.  
5.56.   He concluded that e -commerce was one of the key topics in the post -Nairobi discussions 
and that his delegation looked forward to further discussions of the various other submissions on 
the issue circulated since July.  
5.57.   The representative of Canada  welcomed China’s engagement and initiative to identify areas 
of interest in e -commerce discussions at the WTO. He encouraged all Members to contribute their 
perspective, to enable a robust dialogue and information -sharing on the issue. The submission on 
the agenda was largely focused on trade in goods, but there were some references to services S/C/M/129  
 
- 12 - 
 
  throughout. He would focus on the services -related aspects of the paper, on which he had some 
comments and questions.  
5.58.   Along the lines of the European Union, he asked China to clarify the intention behind 
paragraph 1.3, which referred to an exc hange of information regarding measures and procedures 
for supplying services. He asked whether this was meant to be a sector -specific domestic 
regulation discussion focused on financial services, logistics services and express delivery services. 
As a gove rnment function or services provided under government authority, online customs 
clearance services did not seem to fit with the other services listed in this paragraph. As for 
paragraph 1.7 on bolstering cooperation among services providers, Canada wished to understand 
what role the WTO would play in promoting private sector collaboration. His delegation was 
interested in the transparency elements of the proposal, particularly as captured in paragraph 2.1. 
As pointed out by China, there would be scope for a  useful exchange in the services Council on the 
interface between trade policies and some of the elements identified in paragraphs 3.1 and 4.1 
such as be digital certificates, electronic signature and electronic authentication, recognition of 
digital certi ficates and electronic signatures, consumer protection and privacy protection. Canada 
would continue reflecting on how to contribute to the exercise and looked forward to an insightful 
exchange of views on those issues.  
5.59.   The representative of Norway  agreed that Members needed to take the issue of e -commerce 
and digital trade step by step. Focusing on facilitation of trade in goods could be a useful starting 
point, but Members should go further. The paper on the table focused on transparency and 
information e xchange. This was important for WTO Members, governments, businesses and 
consumers. Transparency was important for e -commerce related to goods as well as services. As 
noted by Mexico and other delegations, many of the suggestions in the proposal pertained to trade 
facilitation of goods and begged the question as to whether many items were already covered by 
the GATT and the TFA, such as publication of laws and rapid customs clearance. There was clearly 
a need to clarify what were and what were not new areas  requiring new rules.  
5.60.   Regarding the services sector itself and noting that many estimates suggested that e -
commerce was 80% or 90% about services, a good first step would be to start with section 3 of 
the paper, which dealt with improving infrastructure an d technical conditions for cross -border e -
commerce, and which also referred to exchanging information on policies concerning electronic 
signatures, authentication and digital certificates both for goods and for services. With regard to 
paragraph 1.3 on inf ormation on regulatory measures for supplying services supporting cross 
border e -commerce, some of the services mentioned were public services, like online customs 
clearance, that were covered by the TFA, while others like logistics and courier services we re 
commercial services. It would be very important to make and keep the distinction between public 
and commercial services. Looking at the specific needs of developing countries and SMEs was very 
important. In paragraph 3.2 there was a suggestion to help d eveloping countries evaluate their 
readiness for e -commerce. Work in various organizations was increasing on this issue. The 
International Trade Centre, as well as the World Bank, had been working on e -commerce for a 
while. The World Bank was thinking of p iloting needs assessments for digital trade in certain 
countries, which could help raise awareness and target needs. UNCTAD was also doing useful work 
on e-commerce that could complement discussions in the WTO. The ideas in paragraph 5 on 
discussions were good as well as ongoing. Informing the whole Membership was important; 
however, delegations should not lose sight of the fact that the WTO was a rule -making 
organization and that dialogues taking place elsewhere were also bringing valuable experience and 
ideas to the table, on which Members could act.  
5.61.   The representative of Australia  welcomed the proposal and the efforts made by China to 
bring an e -commerce perspective to the relevant WTO bodies. On the organization of discussions, 
more generally, her delega tion was open to discussing e -commerce in any relevant body or in any 
format. Regarding the services elements of the proposal, her delegation saw value on discussing 
services and e -commerce in the CTS. Australia supported realizing pragmatic progress on e -
commerce for MC11. In terms of working towards specific outcomes for MC11, her delegation 
supported discussions on issues highlighted in the proposal such as the moratorium on imposition 
of customs duties on electronic transmissions, which Members could co nsider making permanent. 
Other issues included facilitating electronic authentication, electronic signatures and enhanced 
transparency. Her delegation also supported exchanging information on current issues affecting 
trade in services, to build understandi ng in areas where progress could be made in the longer 
term, such as regulatory measures and procedures supporting cross -border electronic S/C/M/129  
 
- 13 - 
 
  transmissions and measures to promote consumer confidence, including consumer protection, 
privacy protection and anti -spam. Echoing Canada's comments, her delegation wished to better 
understand China's proposal in paragraph 1.7 on bolstering cooperation among service providers 
and what role China saw for the WTO promoting this cooperation. Her delegation looked forward t o 
further discussions.  
5.62.   The representative of Paraguay  had some specific questions, particularly on transparency 
and the regulatory framework, which his delegation had already raised in the Council for Trade in 
Goods and the Committee on Trade and Developme nt. In the services Council, his delegation 
wished to focus on the services aspects of the proposal from the perspective of a developing 
landlocked country like Paraguay. He stressed the importance of having more clarity on the way in 
which payment and log istics services would be dealt with, and wished to know whether other 
sectors would be looked at or if the proposal would be limited to those just mentioned.  
5.63.   The representative of Peru said that his delegation believed in the potential of e -commerce 
as an  engine for development. The proposal on the table contained specific elements which could 
contribute to boost international trade. His delegation was pleased to see that the proposal 
focused on the facilitation of trade in goods purchased through digital platforms, which in many 
cases were linked to the supply of different types of services. His delegation supported the 
suggestion to organise an informal joint meeting of the relevan t WTO bodies in order to have a  
comprehensive debate.  
5.64.   The representative of  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  indicated that her delegation was still 
reviewing the proposal. In her delegation's view, discussions should be based on the existing WTO 
mandate. The outcome of discussions in the services Council or any other relevant body sh ould be 
balanced and inclusive, taking into account development needs and priorities, as well as the 
technical, financial and regulatory capacities of developing countries and LDCs. Her delegation was 
open and engaged in constructively helping moving e -commerce forward, and looked forward to 
holding bilateral discussions with China and Pakistan on their proposal.  
5.65.   The representative of Uruguay  said that the proposal was being reviewed in capital and had 
only preliminary comments to share at that stage. Her d elegation considered the proposal 
interesting, as a way of boosting work in the WTO on cross border e -commerce as a possible 
deliverable for MC11. Her delegation shared the objective of clarifying and improving the 
application of existing multilateral trad e rules to e -commerce.  
5.66.   The representative of India welcomed the proposal and discussions in the services Council. 
It was necessary to discuss the proposal in more detail and his delegation was consulting with 
capital on the details and only had a few preli minary comments. As noted by China, the proposal 
was within the context of the mandate of the Work Programme. The focus was on trade in goods 
through cross -border e -commerce.  
5.67.   On the services aspects of the proposal, echoing previous comments, his delegati on saw 
differences in paragraphs 1.3, 1.4 and 1.7. He asked what was envisaged in terms of final 
outcome, given that, as stated by China, the proposal did not suggest new market access 
commitments, but rather making services more accommodating. Likewise, o n the exchange of 
information with regard to the services elements, he enquired whether the proponents viewed this 
in terms of trade rules, experience -sharing or other exchanges. India wished that dialogue to 
continue in the Council. With regard to the eWT P, as mentioned by other Members, his delegation 
was also not clear about the concept and how it fitted into the discussions. Regarding the way 
forward, India welcomed more discussions in the Council to clarify various aspects within the 
mandate of the Wor k Programme. Echoing the European Union, more clarity was needed on the 
final outcome that China was looking for. His delegation would continue to be engaged in 
discussions in the Council and bilaterally, and might revert to the issue in the near future.  
5.68.   The representative of Uganda  welcomed the proposal, which had taken into account the 
process suggested by his delegation during the Dedicated Discussion on e -commerce. In fact, his 
delegation had suggested, inter alia, that submissions on e -commerce should  be taken to the 
relevant bodies as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the e -commerce Work Programme. Only once 
discussions in the relevant bodies had matured, they should be brought back to the General 
Council.  S/C/M/129  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.69.   Turning to the specifics of the paper, his del egation requested clarification on a number of 
points. First, China had indicated that work should proceed on the basis of the e -commerce Work 
Programme. However, he observed that the fourth paragraph of the proposal stated that 
discussions should "clarify " and "improve" the application of existing multilateral trade rules. Such 
language was similar to the language used in the mandate on the TFA. He asked whether China 
was looking for negotiations on multilateral disciplines within the existing mandate of t he Work 
Programme, which was only exploratory in nature, as it only required Members to examine a set of 
issues and report on them.  
5.70.   Second, regarding paragraph 1.1 on creating "a sound trade policy environment facilitating 
cross border e -commerce", his de legation had taken note of the reference to taxation and tax 
policies, but was not sure whether the matter was within the scope of the WTO. Therefore, he 
requested the proponents to clarify those aspects of the proposal.  
5.71.   Third, some of the trade facilitat ion aspects of the proposal, such as simplified fast track 
procedures in respect to customs clearance, single window, transparency measures and others, 
seemed to be already part of the TFA, which was yet to come into force. He asked whether this 
was suppos ed to be an improvement on the TFA.  
5.72.   Fourth, he wished to know how China viewed the development of concrete outcomes on the 
basis of paragraph 3.2. What type of development package could be envisaged for MC11 was an 
issue which Uganda was indeed trying to deal with.  
5.73.   Fifth, with respect to the organization of work and the notion of joint meetings of the 
regular bodies, he asked how this would work in practice. He recalled what Members had done 
with regard to the TFA Protocol of amendment and the General Cou ncil back in 2014. He wondered 
how this would play out with four Chairs plus one, and whether it would be consistent with the 
existing Work Programme. Finally, he thanked the proponents for taking the views of his 
delegation into account and strongly encou raged all the other proponents to follow China’s 
example. He looked forward to continuing discussions, with the view to enhancing Members' 
knowledge on the important issue of e -commerce and realizing its potential future benefits.  
5.74.   The representative of th e Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that the proposal was being 
reviewed in capital but he had some preliminary comments on it which could contribute to better 
understanding and clarifying the issue of e -commerce and those aspects that were relevant to t he 
WTO. His delegation shared many of the views expressed in the proposal, particularly its 
introduction. E -commerce should facilitate trade, discussions should focus on promoting trade in 
developing countries so as to enable them to participate more effec tively in international trade and 
achieve substantive growth and development. Likewise, discussions should not lead to new market 
access commitments and the development dimension should be upheld throughout. In general, his 
delegation had no particular com ments on the different paragraphs and considered paragraph 3 on 
improving the infrastructure and technical conditions for cross -border e -commerce very pertinent. 
However, his delegation did not agree with paragraph 5 on the organization of discussions: 
discussions should conform to WTO Decisions on e -commerce, namely the Work Programme 
contained in the 1998 Ministerial Decision and the Nairobi Ministerial Decision. Therefore, work 
should take place in the relevant bodies. On the moratorium, his delegation d id not support 
making it permanent; more analysis was needed and the issue had to be considered at MC11.  
5.75.   The representative of Colombia  welcomed the proposal on the table as an important 
contribution to the Work Programme. The proposal was under detailed r eview in capital and 
Colombia would revert with specific comments. His delegation was willing to continue discussing its 
different aspects in the relevant bodies to which it had been submitted. He considered that the 
submission of the proposal to the diffe rent relevant bodies was helpful to overcome issues 
regarding the organization of deliberations in the WTO. He called for all delegations to participate 
constructively in parallel discussions in each body, without prejudging the final outcome of the 
progre ss made on any specific aspect. His delegation was open to continuing substantive 
discussions on this proposal and any other submitted following a similar methodology, as long as 
they helped to frame and deepen the debate with a view to arriving at a concr ete outcome on e -
commerce for MC11.  
5.76.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  welcomed China’s proposal on the facilitation of trade 
in goods enabled by the Internet. Her delegation wished to seek a number of clarifications on S/C/M/129  
 
- 15 - 
 
  some key points in the proposal. First, how would cross -border trade in goods enabled by the 
Internet and trade in goods "not" enabled by the Internet be distinguished? As wholesale and retail 
online business grew, transactions in all types of goods could now be enabled by the Internet an d 
e-commerce, regardless of size, functionality and value. Therefore, her delegation was interested 
in learning from China how the e -commerce trade in goods which was the subject of the proposal 
could be identified. Second, as far as the scope of the propo sal was concerned, there was no 
mention of the issue of digital products which had traditionally been delivered as "physical goods", 
or of the electronic delivery of services which was currently the fastest growing sector in e -
commerce trade. The briefing session on trade in services and e -commerce just organized by the 
Secretariat had highlighted the trend of more services being purchased over the Internet. If these 
were taken out of the equation, the proposal would be of less value to the multilateral tra ding 
system.  
5.77.   In Chinese Taipei's view, the two criteria that should be used to judge the value of the 
proposal were the extent to which e -commerce and Internet transaction services, or on -line 
wholesale and retail services, were enabled; and, the extent t o which trade in goods was enabled. 
These two elements formed an inseparable part of e -commerce cross -border trade in goods. 
Therefore, discussions should not be limited to payment and logistics services alone, but rather 
look at all services sectors that could have a role in facilitating e -commerce, including 
communication services and customs clearance services. She asked China to elaborate further on 
those key issues and reiterated her delegation's interest in further engaging in discussions on e -
commerc e. 
5.78.   The representative of the United States  welcomed the communication, which contained a 
number of specific proposals that were ripe for collaboration within the WTO context. His 
delegation only had preliminary comments at that stage and, even if it had tr ied to separate out 
the services elements, some of the comments were general in nature.  
5.79.   The proposal contained a number of trade facilitation measures to encourage the transit of 
goods bought and sold through e -commerce platforms. As the communication sugg ested, 
simplifying border measures for imports and exports, and encouraging the exchange of 
information on regulatory measures and procedures impacting e -commerce, would encourage 
increased trade, particularly among SMEs that relied on e -commerce platforms  to export. One 
question he had in that regard was how to promote trade facilitation measures across -the-board, 
that started with and built on the successful reduction of barriers and lowered costs in the 
expedited channel of trade for e -commerce. The Unit ed States was interested in trade facilitation 
in more than just name and wished to attain measurable reductions in formalities, costs and time 
in all channels of trade.  
5.80.   Firms selling products online benefited from the innovation and efficiency -enhancing 
benefits of competition in the underlying platforms and networks that made e -commerce possible, 
namely the computing and telecommunications services that linked buyers and sellers globally. 
Accordingly, the Work Programme should examine the status of liber alization and prospects for 
improvement of these sectors, for both modes 1 and 3.  
5.81.   The communication recommended extending the moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. This was a step Members had taken at every Ministerial since 1998 and it  
had become a cornerstone of the global digital economy. Even beyond extending the moratorium, 
the United States supported the WTO making the moratorium permanent to allow digitally -enabled 
firms to more confidently offer their services around the world.  
5.82.   His delegation recognized the intent of the recommendation to promote mutual recognition 
of digital certificates and electronic signatures given the importance of functions such as electronic 
authentication for commercial transaction; electronic authenticat ion was essential to ensuring the 
validity of online commerce. However, in most markets, these technologies were not regulated, 
and there was also great value in enabling buyers and sellers to have the ability to mutually 
determine the best method availabl e to ensure the security and integrity of their transactions.  
5.83.   In view of the breadth of digital trade, he encouraged the uptake of other related issues, 
beyond trade in goods. Digitally -delivered services should be afforded the same protection as 
services provided in an off -line context, and warranted inclusion in any dialogue on the e -
commerce Work Programme. Likewise, digital products, such as e -books, apps, music, and videos, S/C/M/129  
 
- 16 - 
 
  should be protected against discrimination in the same way in which their offli ne analogues were 
protected. His delegation looked forward to engaging further on the submission and welcomed the 
opportunity to have an open dialogue on some of its specifics, to allow for a better understanding 
of some of the concepts contained therein.  
5.84.   The representative of New Zealand  said that it was crucial to have a deeper understanding 
of how the proposal related to services. It was obvious that the focus of the proposal was on goods 
and that services received only a secondary focus; he therefore as ked the proponents to further 
explain how their proposal related to the work of the services Council. Echoing comments made by 
other delegations, including Australia, he was also interested in understanding what sort of 
outcome was envisaged. The elements identified in the proposal, which was being reviewed in 
capital, raised important questions but his delegation asked the proponents to further clarify how a 
successful outcome by MC11 would look like.  
5.85.   The representative of Israel  said that her delegation s upported all initiatives on e -commerce 
in the Council and in other relevant bodies. She welcomed the paper on the table, which contained 
some concrete ideas. Israel was reflecting on how to contribute to current e -commerce initiatives, 
in order to work tow ards a concrete outcome for MC11. She invited the proponents to share their 
views on the various e -commerce papers.  
5.86.   The representative of Turkey  indicated that e -commerce appeared to be an area where all 
Members had an interest in further exploration, and her delegation also shared this interest. As a 
relatively new and developing area of trade in services, the GATS could not fully address issues 
related to e -commerce. Therefore, it was promising that the Membership had shown growing 
interest in the issue.  
5.87.   Turkey appreciated the proposal on the table, which outlined the current level of discussions 
and how to move forward to achieving an outcome at MC11. However, it seemed necessary to go 
a little beyond exchange of information as a goal if Members were loo king for deliverables for 
MC11, as stated in the paper. For Turkey, an informal joint meeting of the relevant bodies was 
necessary before delegating any issues to the relevant committees, if so agreed. Her delegation 
looked forward to having the opportunit y to discuss in detail all the papers submitted since last 
June in a joint meeting, where delegations could decide which elements were cross -cutting and 
should be handled in joint meetings and which elements should be discussed under the relevant 
bodies. O therwise, Members would find themselves debating for a long time what issues to discuss 
under each committee. Nevertheless, her delegation was ready to discuss e -commerce regardless 
of the institutional set up for the discussions.  
5.88.   Turkey attached great im portance to discussing issues of confidentiality, consumer 
protection, cyber -security, regulation of unsolicited communications, access and use of the 
Internet, licensing, ID verification, electronic payment systems, intellectual property rights, digital 
signature, customs and tariffs, cross -border data transfers, data localization and access to source 
code. Her delegation looked forward to having an in -depth and constructive discussion also on 
these elements.  
5.89.   The representative of Argentina  indicated that  his delegation supported moving forward with 
the discussions on e -commerce. The proposal on the table contributed to keeping up the 
momentum which had started with the submissions made by several Members before the summer 
break. His delegation was still r evising the proposal and only had preliminary comments at that 
juncture.  
5.90.   Regarding paragraph 1.1, he noted that the World Customs Organization (WCO) had 
created in July 2016 a Working Group on electronic commerce (WGEC) with the aim of addressing 
cross-cutting issues related to the growth of e -commerce from the perspective of facilitation and 
control. The purpose and scope of the WGEC was to discuss all issues relevant to e -commerce and 
to propose practical solutions for the release of low -value shipments, including the collection of 
tariffs, taxes and control procedures which promoted e -commerce growth for the benefit of 
economic and social development. Argentina had participated last September in the first meeting 
of the WGEC. It would be appropriate to en courage continued co -operation between the WTO and 
the WCO in view of the intersections between, on the one hand, the aspects indicated in the 
submission on simplified customs measures for import, export and transit of goods traded 
electronically and, on t he other, the work undertaken by the WCO.  S/C/M/129  
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.91.   As to paragraph 2, consideration should be given to the particular situation of Members and 
the needs of developing countries, especially LDCs, in terms of receiving assistance and support 
for building capacity, a s stated in the Preamble to the TFA. Any efforts related to the regulatory 
frameworks on cross -border e -commerce should take into account the needs and particularities of 
these countries and the spirit of the TFA.  
5.92.   In relation to paragraph 3.1 on exchange o f information, he wished to inform Members that 
MERCOSUR had developed regulations on the recognition of electronic signature and, in the 
context of ALADI, on digital certificate of origin. Within the context of MERCOSUR, Working Group 
No.13 on e -commerce had agreed on the following regulations applicable at the community level: 
Resolution GMC No.21/04 "Consumers' right to information in commercial transactions performed 
over the Internet"; Resolution GMC No.22/04 "Use of digital signature in the context of  the 
MERCOSUR Secretariat"; Resolution GMC No.34/06 "Guidelines for concluding mutual recognition 
agreements on advanced electronic signatures in the framework of MERCOSUR"; and Resolution 
GMC No.37/06 "Recognition of the legal validity of electronic docum ents, electronic signature and 
advanced electronic signature in MERCOSUR" (the latter is in process of incorporation). In the 
context of ALADI, members had prioritized moving forward on trade facilitation issues, including, 
among others, digital certificat es of origin, use of digital signature and customs procedures 
amenable to harmonization. On the ALADI digital certificate of origin, work on implementation had 
advanced, being Argentina and Brazil the only countries which had already agreed on the terms of  
reference for starting a bilateral pilot plan in 2016. The public and private sector had worked 
jointly on this issue. On digital signature, ALADI was promoting the negotiation of a regional 
agreement for the implementation and recognition of digital sign atures. The ALADI Secretariat had 
circulated a document titled "Evaluation on the viability of implementing an agreement on 
facilitating the use and mutual recognition of the digital signature and its impact on the ALADI 
members".  
5.93.   With regard to paragraph 5.1, on the organization of discussion, his delegation supported 
the proposal of holding an informal joint meeting of the e -commerce dedicated session of the 
General Council, to have a comprehensive discussion on e -commerce and provide political 
guidance.  
5.94.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his delegation attached 
importance to e -commerce and discussions taking place in the WTO on the subject. Discussions 
should focus on the development aspects of e -commerce, should not lea d to new market access 
commitments, and should remain within the confines of the e -commerce Work Programme.   
5.95.   The representative of Chile said that his delegation viewed the proposal with great interest. 
His delegation firmly believed that discussions on e -commerce were important, given the rapid 
developments taking place in this field and the need to follow up on those developments. The 
proposal was still being examined in capital and his delegation would provide comments in due 
course.  
5.96.   The representative  of China  thanked all delegations for their interest, support, comments 
and suggestions. China had taken note of the many specific questions raised. His delegation had 
given some preliminary responses to some of the questions in the context of the Council for Trade 
in Goods, but certainly would come back with further clarifications at a later stage. Finally, his 
delegation looked forward to continuing dialogue with all interested Members, in any configuration, 
as well more in -depth discussion in the future.   
5.97.   The Chairman  thanked all delegations who had taken the floor and suggested that the 
Council take note of the statements made and revert to China's and Pakistan's submission at its 
next meeting.  
5.98.   It was so agreed . 
5.99.   The Chairman  then recalled that the Nairob i Ministerial Decision on the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce (document WT/L/977) instructed the General Council to periodically review 
progress with the Work Programme based on the reports that may be submitted by the WTO 
bodies entrusted with the i mplementation of the Work Programme. The next such review was 
scheduled for December. In line with past practice, he would be producing, under his own 
responsibility, a Chairman's Report to the General Council  of the discussions that the Council  had S/C/M/129  
 
- 18 - 
 
  had un der the Work Programme since June. The report will be purely factual, reflecting the 
essence of Members' discussions at that meeting and back in October.   
5.100.   It was so agreed . 
6  ITEM F – CERTAIN MEASURES REL ATED TO THE REFORM O F THE UNIFIED GAS 
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM OF UKRAINE  
6.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of the Russian Federation.  
6.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled her delegation's previous statement s in 
the respect of the measures taken by Ukraine in the energy sector. She regretted that her 
delegation had to take the floor again and again on the same issue and expressed the Russian 
Federation's serious concern as regarded the adoption and implement ation o f the Law of Ukraine 
No.1645-VII "On amendments to some legislative acts of Ukraine on reforming the management 
system of the Unified Gas Transportation System of Ukra ine" and the Law of Ukraine No. 329-VIII 
"On the Natural Gas Market" of 9  April 2015, whic h invalidated the Law of Ukraine  No.1645-VII of 
14 August  2014.  
6.3.  She would not repeat her delegati on's reasons to believe that th at Law constituted a critical 
violation of all basic WTO rules and principles, as well as the specific commitments undertaken by  
Ukraine.   
6.4.  After over one year of numerous request s by the Russian Federation, Ukraine had deigned to 
respond to her delegation's questions regarding that Law. The content of the answers her 
delegation had received brought the Russian Federation to the fi rst conclusion. Ukraine was 
neither willing to comply with its WT O obligations nor to cooperate  with Russia by responding to 
Russia's  legitimate attempts to clarify certain important issues of its interest.  
6.5.  As her delegation had been advised by Ukraine in response to the major part of its questions 
concerning the substance of the Law and its practical implementation, her delegation had analysed 
the Ukrainian Schedule of Specific Commitments properly.  Russia had not found anything in 
Ukraine's Schedule that it had not already know n before the exercise suggested by Ukraine. Her 
delegation had found the entry "none" both for Market Access and National Treatment 
commitments under the GATS mode 3 (commercial presence) in respect of 'Pipeline transport ' 
services a nd 'Storage and warehouse services ' (a subsector of services auxiliary to all modes of 
transport). To that extent , the restrictions , provided for in the Law of Ukraine , indeed violated the 
fundamental principles of the General Agreement on Trade in Service s, nam ely MFN and National 
Treatment, as well as specific commitments undertaken by Ukraine under the GATS.  
6.6.  Therefore, Ukraine's suggestion to conduct that exercise could only be treated as a 
confirmation by Ukraine that the Law was not consistent with Ukr aine's WTO obligations. That 
actually cast doubt that Ukraine generally took its WTO commitments seriously.  
6.7.  The Russian Federation again called upon Ukraine to change the pattern of its behaviour, 
embrace a more responsible approach a nd bring the Law of U kraine No. 329-VIII "On the Natural 
Gas Market" of 9  April 2015 in full conformity with its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  
6.8.  The representative of Ukraine  thanked  the Russian Federation for its continuing interest 
regarding the reform of the unified gas  transportation system of Ukraine and took n ote of the 
concerns expressed. In th at regard , it had to  be noted that Ukraine had  already provided i ts 
answers in respect of issues  raised by the Russian Federation regarding the Law of Ukraine "On 
the Natural G as Market" of 9 April 2015 . These answers  contain ed all necessary clarification s 
concerning the provisions on th at matter. Ukraine me t all its WTO commitments and made  every 
reasonable effort to clarify certain important provisions of national legislation on the issues  raised . 
His delegation was  ready to cooperate at the expert level and , in case of additional questions , 
ready to ensure further clarification s on the reform of  the gas transportation system.  
6.9.  However, Ukraine would be grateful for an explanati on of the interest regarding its unified 
gas transportation system, taking into account the lack of interest and practical steps of the S/C/M/129  
 
- 19 - 
 
  juridical entities  of the Russian Federation  with regard to the intention to negotiate and participate 
in the reform of the gas transportation system . Finally, Ukraine confirmed  its adherence to its WTO 
commitment s to respond properly to the legitimate concerns of all WTO Members.  
6.10.   The representative of Armenia  echoed the concerns expressed by the Russian Federation 
and call ed for the reform of the unified gas transportation system of Ukraine to be performed and 
organised in full compliance with WTO rules and procedures.  
6.11.   The representative of Cuba had also taken note of the statement by the Russian Federation 
and once again i nvited Members to act in full conformity with WTO rules and procedures. She 
called on Members to refrain from applying measures that could represent unnecessary barriers to 
trade and that went against the obligations and commitments undertaken in the WTO.  
6.12.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made.  
6.13.   It was so agreed . 
7  ITEM G - MODE 4 – ASSESSMENT OF BARRIE RS TO ENTRY  
7.1.  The Chairman  indicated that the item had been added to the agenda of the Council at the 
request of the delegation of India. At the Council meeting held in October, the delegation of India 
had suggested that, rather the discussing specific mode 4 measures, by specific Members, the 
Council should instead organize a seminar, or a dedicated discussion, on generic obstacle s to 
mode  4, and suggeste d a number of possible topics. Several Members  had asked India to share 
more details about its suggestion, in writing, to be a ble to consider it adequately. Others had 
called for a wider examination of services market access barrie rs that would not focus exclusively 
on one mode of supply.  
7.2.  In reply to calls for a written submission, the previous  week India had  circulated a document 
detailing its proposal for a Council seminar on barriers to mode 4, in document RD/SERV/135, 
dated 16 N ovember. The Council had held an informal meeting on 16 November; a s the Indian  
proposal had been  submitted just before the meeting, reactions  at that stage had only been  
preliminary.  
7.3.  The representative of India recalled that, when introducing India's sub mission on barriers to 
entry being faced by mode 4 service suppliers in March, his delegation had explained in detail the 
need for the Council to focus on those barriers. Supply of services through mode 4 was particularly 
important for developing countries  and LDCs ; it was therefore disappointing  that commitments in 
an area of such critical interest to these countries were shallow and fraught with market access, 
administrative and other barriers. India's earlier submission had highlighted the increasingly 
complex nature of barriers to mode 4 and shared the experience of Indian suppliers in that regard. 
The LDC Collective Request also referred to very similar issues.  
7.4.  The June meeting of the Council had shown constructive engagement on India's paper by a 
large number of Members, with some very useful suggestions also emerging from the discussion. 
Building on what had been said at previous meetings and keeping in mind that some Members 
could not agree to an update of the Secretariat Background Note on mode 4, hi s delegation had 
proposed a seminar on the barriers to mode 4 entry.  
7.5.  The seminar proposal in document RD/SERV/135 had been  explained in detail at the informal 
Council meeting held on 1 6 November. He would not reiterate the points made at the informal 
meeting, as his delegation had explained  then the need for the seminar and the proposed 
programme. He also noted that there was nothing new in India's proposal as workshops on 
mode  4 had been held previously in the WTO. The last such seminar had been held in 2 008, with a 
wide participation of experts from both developed and developing country Member s, and his 
delegation had found it very useful . 
7.6.  The purpose of the seminar proposed for 2017 was to look into the barriers, including those 
identified in the seminar  proposal, faced  by service suppliers in mode 4  by sharing experiences. 
India looked forward to a decision at that meeting on holding the seminar in early 2017, possibly 
during the following cluster, and working with other interested Members and the Secret ariat in S/C/M/129  
 
- 20 - 
 
  shaping the proposed a genda, as well as the logistics involved. He reiterated that the subject area 
of the proposed seminar was extremely important to India as well as to other Members and that 
his delegation would continue to bring relevant issue s for discussion at future meetings.   
7.7.  All delegations who spoke  thanked India for its proposal.  
7.8.  The representative of the Philippines  said that her delegation support ed India's proposal for a 
CTS seminar on barriers to mode 4 . The seminar  could focus on ca pacitating partic ipants on the 
finer details of m ode 4 and the barriers  to trade through this mode of supply , as well as serve as 
an avenue for Members to discuss the practical ways towards the eliminat ion of mode  4 
restrictions to facilitate trade in serv ices. 
7.9.  Frequently used  restrictions , such as Labour  Market Test s or Economic Needs Test s, quota s 
or employment lev ies, were employment restrictions, which should not be  applied to service 
providers (n atural persons) who we re essentially not employed in the host country, but whose 
presence was only to accomplish a service contra ct. If Members could  agree on removing such 
employment restrictions from GATS schedules and in  their FTAs, then service suppliers could  enter 
the host Member s to provide services  more easily . This would lead to the fulfilment of the global 
objective of puttin g resources to areas where they would  be most productively utilised.  
7.10.   Based on the Philippines'  own experience, it was important to define the categories of 
natural persons, similarl y to what had been done in ASEAN and other ASEAN -plus FTAs . This 
enabled service providers to be  guided on relevant requirements and qualifications for natural 
persons (e.g. experience, education, expertise) , as well as conditions for entry and stay ( e.g. 
period s of stay, extension s, visa s). 
7.11.   Recognition of qualifications  and the protection  of workers were Philippine policies for 
negotiations on the movement of natural p ersons, aimed  at achieving  a situation where the  Filipino 
professionals abroad we re treat ed equally to profess ionals of the host country and we re provided 
workers’ protection. Benchmarking and sharing country practices during the seminar could  prove 
to be a p roductive exercise to move the m ode 4 discussions forward.  
7.12.   The representative of Switz erland  said that the Indian proposal for a mode 4 seminar was 
opportune and his delegation was  in favour  of holding the seminar ; he hoped that an agreement 
would be found on the proposal.  
7.13.   The representative of Ecuador  expressed his delegation's support for  the seminar  proposed 
by India. He underscored the importance of mode 4, particularly for developing countries, and  said 
that an event like the one proposed by India could help foster information -sharing amongst 
Members and set parameters that would contri bute to addressing the obstacles to the mode 4 
supply of services.  
7.14.   The representative of China  also supported holding the seminar on barriers to mode  4, to 
enhance further discussion and information -exchange. His delegation hoped that such discussion 
would  help identify possible solutions to mode 4 barriers, which were an issue of common concern 
to developing Members.  
7.15.   The representative of Nigeria  also expressed his delegation's support for the proposed 
seminar and openness to discussing the proposed agend a and logistics for the se minar.  
7.16.   The representative of United States said that, as indicated at the informal meeting, his 
delegation did not yet have a definitive position on India's proposal. He had asked a number of 
questions at the informal meeting and hopefully some additional discussion could be had with 
India. He was not sure yet what ground rules were needed, but, as in the case of the pro posed 
seminar on e -commerce, the se still needed to be considered carefully. He noted  that issues of 
social securi ty and taxes were outside the bounds of w hat WTO Members should discuss.  
7.17.   It would have helped consultations with capital if the Indian proposal had been properly 
reflected on the agenda for that meeting as seeking some action by the Council; the agenda jus t 
stated "Statement by India". That same morning , at another meeting,  there had been a pro posal 
raised under "Other Business" and now there was a proposal put forward under a "Statement". It S/C/M/129  
 
- 21 - 
 
  was hard to prepare for meeting s when the agenda was not clear.  He had asked India to address 
the issue ; as this had not been done , it was hardly surprising that his delegation did not have a 
firm position yet . 
7.18.   The representative of New Zealand  said that his delegation was not going to stand in the 
way of an agreement o n a seminar on mode 4. Every Member had the right to rai se issues of 
offensive interest  and mode 4 was clearly an issue of interest to India as well as  other Members. 
As to the proposed agenda, he indicated that social security and taxes created an issue f or his 
delegation. In the interest of ensuring a balanced agenda, he also indicated that the remarks of 
the Philippines and India about linkages with offers created a sense of discomfort in terms of the 
approach and balance of the discussion. Nevertheless,  his delegation was ready to be constructive 
and work with other Members and India in terms of a potential agenda.  
7.19.   The representative of the European Union  recognised  that there was a  big interest in 
mode 4. His delegation was still considering the proposa l that India had submitted the previous 
week and did not have a firm position yet. He noted that there was a broad understanding that 
seminars should be non -normative, information -sharing exercises, as just discussed in relation to 
e-commerce. Against this  background, his delegation was puzzled by India's draft agenda for the 
mode 4 seminar, which seemed to propose pursuing specific policy objectives. For instance, it 
suggested exploring the feasibility of exempting categories of natural persons from social  security 
payments , which was a specific policy objective ; considering whether there was meaningful market 
access in the presence of discriminatory requirements such as residency requirements , which 
seemed  to pass judgment and interpret Members' commitment s; and qualifying or simplifying 
Economic Needs Tests. If Members were looking at holding a non -normative seminar, such 
elements should not be included. He  wished to enquire as to India's views in that regard, so as to  
facilitate domestic consultations . 
7.20.   The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation could support India's proposal  and 
noted that mode 4 was an issue of interest to many delegations . He suggested that the Chairman 
organize further consultations to better  shape  the agenda, and that the 20 08 seminar could 
provide useful guidance in that regard and help Members find common ground . He did not have 
detailed comments on the agenda at that stage but hoped to contribute in the coming weeks ; he 
suggested that looking at past practice could be usef ul. 
7.21.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that his delegation supported 
India's proposal and concurred with Brazil that similar events , which  had been held in the past 
without any difficulty , could also offer useful guidance.  
7.22.   The representative of  Argentina  also supported India's proposed and indicated that he would 
revert with more detailed comments on the draft agenda.  
7.23.   The representative of Uruguay  also viewed very favourably India's suggestion for a mode 4 
seminar , as a platform for Members to share information and experiences with the aim of 
improvi ng delegations' understanding of  the issue.  
7.24.   The representative of Australia  said that the proposal was helpful in clarifying India's 
thinking on how it planned to address mode 4 discussions in the Council;  it was useful to have 
details in writing to inform consideration in capital. As previously indicated, her delegation was 
open to discussing  in the Council  any issues affecting trade in services  that fell within the scope of 
the G ATS. She noted that the proposed seminar  overlapped in parts with India's proposal on Trade 
Facilitation in Service s and, as such, would usefully inform those discussions and any future 
negotiations. It would be useful to get a better understanding of India's objectives , in terms of 
what it hoped to get out o f the discussions . 
7.25.   Her delegation  encourage d India to consider possibilities for streamlining  the proposal. As it 
currently stood, the proposal covered a lot of very broad areas, a number of which had been 
discussed in detail during  previous workshops. Australia w ould support discussions on enhancing 
transparency, including through  schedules ; experience -sharing on  mode 4  categories, which her 
delegation agreed could lead to transparency of commitments ; and residency and nationality 
requirements and Economic Needs Tests , as well as  the extent to which such measures impacted 
the value of  market access commitments . To maximise value , discussions  should be forward -
looking and not limited to examining existing GATS commitments , noting that many Members had S/C/M/129  
 
- 22 - 
 
  improved on their GATS commitments through FTAs.  In comparison  to FTAs , GATS commitments 
were dated, often  lower -ambition and did not provide a good basis for experience -sharing on best 
practice to facilitate tra de in services.  
7.26.   It would be useful if India could consider some focused questions , to guide deliberations  and 
ensure that any future work contributed positively to the body of work of the Council and did not 
just repeat previous detailed discussions  on mo de 4. Her delegation would also be interested in 
better understanding India's rationale for proposing a seminar rather than a regular discussion in 
the CTS. In general, Australia's preference would be to discuss  substantive service trade issues 
within the regular meeting s of the Council , but her delegation was open to deliberations in other  
format s and would be interested to participate in any future discussions of a draft agenda .  
7.27.   The representative of Bangladesh  said that India's proposal was helpful and touched upon 
issues that the LDC Group itself had also raised in its collective request. He suggested that the 
seminar also address the mutual recognition of qualifications, as those discussions could also 
inform deliberations in the WPDR.  
7.28.   The representati ve of Turkey  observe d that mode 4 ha d been the most neglected mode , 
both in terms of Members’  commitments and its contribution to services trade. Turkey was a 
strong proponent of robust disciplines for measures affecting m ode 4 trade. As such , her 
delegati on welcome d India’s proposal and was ready to contribute through experience -sharing at 
the proposed seminar.   
7.29.   The representative of Canada  said that, w hile India's proposal capture d useful component s, 
such as transparency, there we re other aspects, such a s social security, that Canada did not 
consider to fall under the scope of the WTO.  As the EU and Australia had mention ed, Canada wa s 
also unclear on the intended outcome of the proposed seminar and wished to receive  more 
information about its objectives.   
7.30.   For example, Indi a had  proposed discussin g on how various categories of mode 4 
commitments were defined. How d id India en visage using the outcomes of tho se discussions going 
forward?  If India’s intention was to better understand mode 4 issues, would  the w orkshop be used 
to ex plore not only the trade impacts  of barriers to mode 4, but also look at why there could  be 
sensitivities in some markets, as well as potential impac ts on domestic labour markets? For 
Canada, that would be an important component of und erstanding the treatment of mode 4 in the 
WTO.  
7.31.   Like Australia, Canada  saw benefit  in focusing discussions on approaches taken in FTAs, 
which ha d, in many cases, e volved beyond WTO commitments. How did  India envisage  the focus 
of discussions in that  regard ? Canada also consider ed commitments for the "presence of natural 
person " to be an important aspect of mode 4, which was often unclear or missing in WTO 
schedules.  Did India anticipate discussion of th at important topic?   
7.32.   While Canada could  support a standa lone discussion on mode 4, it was important for all 
Members to recall that no mode of supply operate d in isolation. For example, mode 3 openings 
could  lead to increased domestic employment and a corresponding decrease in reliance on work 
abroad. In additio n, in a world that was increasingly digitally connected, mode 1 ha d become an 
increasingly important mode of supply,  comple menting mode 4 as work was  conducted virtually, 
eliminati ng, for example, travel costs. It would  be important that work going forward  
acknowledged  the importance of meaningful market access in all modes of supply.  
7.33.   The representative of Mexico  expressed her delegation's support  for the seminar proposed 
by India. She called on Members to continue discussing the issue and hoped to contribu te with 
concrete ideas.  
7.34.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that her delegation welcomed India's proposed 
seminar. She had a number of suggestions on the proposed agenda. First, given that there were 
no agreed definitions for the various mode 4 categ ories, she suggested that the Secretariat could  
elaborate on how the GATS regulated mode 4. Members could share their categorizations and 
domestic regulations on mode 4, and how these were managed. Second, she proposed that section 
2.3.3, "Residency/Nation ality and other discriminatory requirements affecting provision of Mode 4 
services", and Section 2.3.4 ,"Economic Needs Test and their impact on trade in services", be S/C/M/129  
 
- 23 - 
 
  joined into one session because Section 2.3.3 corresponded to GATS Article XVII and Sect ion 2.3.4 
to Article XVI, which were related. Finally, she was of the view that that Section 2.3.1, "Social 
security payments for service suppliers and its related costs and benefits", was not suitable for 
discussion at the seminar, as some other Members h ad already highli ghted. It was a sensitive 
issue, which  did not fall within the scope of the GATS.  
7.35.   The representative of Colombia  expressed his delegation's support for India's proposed 
seminar. Mode 4 was an issue of significant interest for Colombia and exchanging information on 
national and regional experiences would be very helpful  in complementing deliberations  on the 
issue. He was interested in participating in discussions to arrive at a balanced agenda  that was in 
the interest of all Members . 
7.36.   The rep resentative of India thanked all delegations who had spoken. He noted that there 
was overwhelming support , in principle , for holding the seminar. A number of questions had been 
raised on certain aspects of the proposed agenda. As for the EU's questions on the policy 
objectives of the seminar, he indicated that India's  intention was to have an experience -sharing 
exercise with different stakeholders , and not to negotiate either rules or market access; the idea 
was to focus on existing commitments , Members' ex periences and what  lessons could be drawn 
from those . His delegation was open to discussing  the issue  further.  
7.37.   With regard to Australia's comment on having focused questions, he indicated his 
delegation's readiness to consider the suggestion. In terms of t he reasons  for a seminar rather 
than a CTS discussion , he said that hearing the views of a large number of players, both from the 
private and public sector s, in an informal setting would be more useful than being bound by the 
formalities of Council meeting s. The seminar of fered a platform for experience -sharing without any 
normative content.  
7.38.   On Canada's point about FTA experiences, he said that the agenda contain ed a placeholder 
for all other issues related to mode 4  that Members were interested in , of whi ch FTAs could be 
one. The focus of the seminar was on barriers to mode 4, so any suggestions from any Member  
that had a bearing on that issue were  welcome. H e indicated that the perspectives from regulators 
dealing with mode 4 would be helpful in terms of achieving  a better understanding of the concerns 
related to this mode of supply. With regard to the issue of social security, his delegation was open 
to discussing Members' concerns  when the agenda would be  considered in detail . Finally, in terms 
of other topics suggested by Members, such as those mentioned by Chinese Taipei, again India 
was flexible and ready to work with other interested Members. His delegation also looked forward 
to comments from the Secretariat.  
7.39.   Finally, in response to the US comment ab out the unexpectedness of the agenda item, he 
recalled that his delegation's propos al had been circulated  and discussed  at the informal Council 
meeting held on 16 November  and, as such, it was  clearly  going to be up for discussion at that 
formal meeting. H e hoped that Members could approve India's proposal in principle ; his delegation  
looked at the two proposed seminars, on mode 4 and on e -commerce, in the same vein in terms of 
the way the Council proceeded with them.   
7.40.   The Chairman  noted the broad support t hat had been expressed for India's proposed 
seminar on mode 4. He said that , while  some Members had shared  only preliminary positions, an 
"in principle" agreement was emerging, subject to further discussions and clarifications on the 
airgram .  
7.41.   The represen tative of United States  stressed that , as he had indicated,  his delegation did 
not have a position on holding the seminar yet . There was a need to better define  and revise  the 
agenda and  his delegation could not be asked to take a position on something tha t was not on the 
agenda.  
7.42.   In light of the statement  of the United States , the representative of India said that he  had 
to reserve his position on the proposed seminar  on e-commerce . 
7.43.   The Chairman  suggested that the mode 4 seminar might be agreed "ad referend um". He 
then released the interpreters in view of the lateness of the hour.  S/C/M/129  
 
- 24 - 
 
  7.44.   The representative of United States  noted that  the proposal by Chinese Taipei had been on 
the table for several months and had been discussed at various Council meetings. The India n 
proposal, on the other hand, had been submitted just hours before the informal meeting, and this  
had not provided sufficient time for consultations. It had also not been clear what that day's 
meeting was going to address. As such, comparing the two propo sals was not appropriate.  
7.45.   The representative of the European Union said that he would need to revert to capital before 
agree ing, in principl e, to hold ing the mode 4 seminar. While he would only need a few days to 
arrive at a firm position on the proposal,  he could not agree to it that day.  
7.46.   The representative of Canada  said that he was in the same position as the EU, in that his 
instructions at that juncture were to seek clarifications from India on a number of issues 
concerning  the draft agenda and he felt  he did not have full clarity as yet. He echoed the comment 
by the United States that the  proposal by  Chinese Taipei had been on the agenda for a long time, 
and had actually been dragged out by India who had sought  similar types of clarifications. As such,  
it was a bit unrealistic to expect Members to be able to agree to a proposal that had just been 
tabled , as was the case with for  mode 4 seminar . 
7.47.   The representative of  the Plurinational State of B olivia noted that the issue under discussion 
was of interest  to many Members and many had indeed supported India's proposal; as such, it was 
important to have balance in the way in which Council seminars were handled . He also recalled 
that, as that was a formal meeting, interpretation had to be provided.  
7.48.   The repres entative of India stressed that he was being consistent: his delegation, together 
with other s, had concerns on the e -commerce seminar but had engaged in discussions of the 
agenda. He could not see any inconsistency.  
7.49.   The Chairman  suggested that the Council take note of the statements made, that he 
organize further consultations  and that the Council revert to this item at its next meeting.  
7.50.   It was so agreed . 
8  ITEM H – OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1.  No items were raised under Other Business.  
8.2.  The meeting was adjourned . 
_________ _