RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/29 
11 July 2005 
 (05-3061) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 7 AND 18 FEBRUARY 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
   
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPD R) held its twenty-ninth meeting on 7 and 
18 February under the chairpersonship of Mr. David Cairns of the United Kingdom.  The agenda for 
the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2489.   Before adopting the agenda, the Chairperson
 
observed that several new papers had been distri buted since the airgramme was circulated.  He 
suggested that the paper from Switzerland on tec hnical standards (S/WPDR/W/32) be taken up as the 
first item on the agenda, to be followed by the room document from a group of countries presented by 
India on qualification requirements and procedures.   
2. The Chairperson  noted that Mexico would be making a PowerPoint presentation as part of the 
discussion of their earlier paper.  Some delegations had indicated they wished to have more time to 
finalize their proposals, and he therefore proposed  that the WPDR meeting be continued on the 
morning of 18 February.  Members  agreed to adopt the agenda, as amended, and to continue the 
meeting on 18 February. 
3. Under Other Business, the Chairperson  indicated he wished to make a statement updating 
delegations on the situation regarding the election of chairs.  He also wished to have a brief 
discussion, in informal mode, on possibl e next steps for the Working Party. 
4.  The delegation of Colombia  mentioned that a group of developing countries would possibly 
be presenting a proposal on 18 February. 
5. Before moving to the first agenda item, the Chairperson  reminded delegations of the 
importance of providing copies of written statements to the interpreters.2   
A. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS  ARTICLE VI:4 
(a) Discussion of Concepts  Relating to the Development of Disciplines  
 Switzerland's Proposal for Disciplines on Technical Standards
 
6. The Chairperson  noted that Switzerland's new paper was entitled Proposal for Disciplines on 
Technical Standards in Services , circulated as S/WPDR/W/32 date d 1 February 2005.  He called upon 
the delegation of Switzerland to introduce their paper.   
7. The delegation of Switzerland  noted that the provision of services in many services sectors 
was heavily affected by an array of national regulations.  Members needed to bear in mind, when 
considering their proposal, that at no point did they question Members' right to regulate and to 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 To facilitate the Report on the Meeting, delegati ons are also encouraged to provide the electronic 
versions of those interventions to the Secretariat. S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 2  
 
introduce new regulations within their territories as provided for in the preamble of the GATS.  Yet, 
disciplines needed to strike a balance between the freedom of Members to adopt and implement 
domestic regulations deemed necess ary to pursue national policy obj ectives and ensuring that such 
measures did not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services.  Another very important point was to make totally clear that it was neither their intention nor the purpose that those disciplines 
formulate the substance of any regulation.  Th ey emphasized that domestic regulations would  be 
formulated and developed in response to changing  legal, social and ec onomic environments and 
differing circumstances in the territory of each Member.   
8. The elements for disciplines on technical sta ndards in services had been developed in the 
view that they be applied in a horizontal way for a ll services sectors.  Switzerland was of the view that 
many of the issues to be addressed by the disciplin es were sufficiently similar across services sectors 
that common building blocks could be developed.   That, however, should not lead Members to 
conclude that Switzerland was in any way opposed  to considering sector specific elements for 
disciplines.  The delegation emphasized that the el ements for disciplines on technical standards had 
been designed to integrate into any draft Annex on Do mestic Regulation that might be retained by the 
membership.  Switzerland shared the analysis by the Secretariat in document S/WPPS/W/9 that work 
carried out in the accountancy sector would suggest that standards in the area of trade in services 
applied not only to the technical characteristics of th e service itself, but also to the rules according to 
which the service must be performed.  The partic ular difficulty encountered during the work on 
disciplines on technical standards was that GATS Article VI:4 did not provide any definition of technical standards.  In their view, three central qu estions therefore needed to be answered:  (a) which 
kind of requirements should technical standards cove r;  (b) whether technical standards comprise 
mandatory and voluntary standards;  and (c) wh ether technical standards only cover standards 
prepared, adopted or applied by governmental aut horities and non-governmental bodies to whom such 
authority has been delegated, or should they also include non-governmental standardizing bodies. 
9. The second and third questions were closely linked,  and not easy to reply to.  At first sight, 
international law would suggest that disciplines do not apply to private bodies, while common sense 
would suggest the contrary.  Professional associations played an important role in setting the state of 
the art of providing a service (which might become  relevant in the settlement of disputes before 
domestic courts).  This was particularly the case in countries such as Switzerland where much power 
was delegated to the sub-federal level, and where professional associations were important.  That was 
why they proposed to include also those non-gove rnmental standardizing bodies to which no formal 
power had been delegated, e.g. through the provisi ons of a law or their ordinances.   Nevertheless 
there should be some degree of connection to governmental action.   
10. Delegates thanked Switzerland for the new pa per, and made the following preliminary 
comments.   
11. The delegation of Mexico
 said Switzerland had saved them a great deal of work, as they 
previously had the intention to present a very similar proposal.  They fully supported the reasons 
given in the proposal for the establishment of su ch disciplines, and believed the document enabled 
Members to achieve the objectives of GATS Article VI:4.  The delegation stated that technical 
standards would be one of the principal barriers in th e future to international trade, if they were not 
already.  That was why Mexico believed that effe ctive access to the services market could only be 
accompanied by disciplines that encompassed the idea that technical  standards were not unnecessary 
barriers to trade.   
12. The delegation of the United States  pointed out several elements of the paper they found 
especially interesting, and wished to return to them for more thorough discussion at a later date.  
These included balancing the need to develop standard s in order to regulate with the need to avoid 
having such standards becoming a barrier to trade in services.  Also interesting was the parallel drawn 
between the TBT agreement and its possible applica tion to the services sector.  Discussion of that  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 3 
 
 
aspect should also take into account Mexico's paper, which provided a case study on how a developing country had successf ully developed and implemen ted its own standards-setting 
programme.   
13. The delegation of Singapore
 stated that several  elements in Switzerland's introduction were 
critical to the work of the WPDR.  First was the em phasis, in keeping with the preamble of the GATS, 
that the disciplines should not in any way prejudice th e right of Members to regulate and to introduce 
new regulations on the supply of services within th eir territories in order to meet national policy 
objectives.  They also welcomed Switzerland's intention that disciplines not  formulate the substance 
of regulations, and recognized that the EC had made a similar point in their proposal.  They noted that 
the paper recognized the merit of focused sectoral complements  to horizontal  disciplines, and agreed 
that the two approaches should not be seen as mutu ally exclusive.  Regarding paragraph 6, the 
delegation asked why Switzerland believed that more comprehensive disciplines on technical 
standards were necessary, i.e. whether it was beca use there were no international standards, or 
because of a lack of international standards for other sectors.  On a more general note, they also asked 
whether the presence or lack of international standard s in particular sectors should influence the type 
of disciplines for those sectors.   Regarding the statement in paragraph 9, on authorizing certain private 
activities, the delegation asked what types of “private  activities” were to be c overed by this provision, 
and whether Switzerland was considering some form of benchmark to measure the extent to which 
such activities were attributable to the government. 
14. Regarding paragraph 11, the delegation said it s hould be noted that, unlike goods, there were 
not many international standards in services;  as such, provisions such as TBT Art 2.4 might not be 
readily applicable to services.  On paragraph 16, on regulatory impact assessment (RIA), the 
delegation asked if the usage of the word “should” w as deliberate.  If so, they  wished to know what 
sort of obligations Switzerland envisaged for that  provision and, more generally, what Switzerland 
meant by regulatory impact assessment and what it would entail.  Noting that services were generally 
non-storable and intangible, and were also gene rally consumed as they were produced, regarding 
paragraph 18 the delegation asked how “reasonable conformity checks” could be carried out “during 
and after the supply of a service”.  Regarding para graph 19, on equivalenc y, the delegation noted 
there were occasions where like services could be supplied by different types of services suppliers, and that different regulations  could be applied to those  different suppliers even if they were supplying 
like services.  That should be borne in mind when discussing the issue of equivalency in services which, as a general rule, could be difficult to apply in the services context.   
15. The delegation of Chinese Taipei
 said the Swiss paper had many merits which were 
worthwhile discussing further.  Noting that Article VI:4 referred only to technical standards, they 
asked if it made sense to make a distincti on under GATS between mandatory regulations and 
voluntary standards.  On paragraph 7, the delega tion said some difficulties might be encountered in 
distinguishing between technical standards and ge neral measures affecting services, and asked for 
further views from Switzerland on the issue.  On pa ragraph 14, regarding the scope of application, 
they generally supported ensuring compliance by priv ate standardization bodies, but asked what might 
constitute "reasonable measures" to ensure complian ce.  On paragraph 16,  the delegation asked what 
was meant by RIA, and how to assess the economic a nd legal viability.  The delegation commented 
that, in the GATS context, technical standards mi ght overlap with qualification requirements, and 
involve concerns such as quality or uniformity, and therefore evaluating the effects on trade could be 
difficult.   
16. The delegation of the European Communities  said the paper raised very complex issues.  
Regarding the lack of international services standard s, as noted by Singapore, they asked to what 
extent it should influence the discussion and was take n into account.  On equi valency in paragraph 19, 
the delegation wished to hear more from Switzerla nd, stating that the EC viewed equivalence as a 
purely technical process not involving the examination of legitimate national policy objectives;  
otherwise, it became very complex to achieve.     S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 4  
 
17. The delegation of Hong Kong, China
 agreed that the TBT and Accountancy Disciplines  
references were relevant, but said one must also b ear in mind the different contexts under which they 
were developed and, therefore, the extent to whic h they would be applicable.  Paragraph 7 was very 
relevant, and the second and thir d questions were particularly  complex to answer.  On non-
governmental bodies, the delegation said there was the question of delegated au thority, and noted the 
bodies had a role to play in terms of international sta ndards.  That should be gi ven particular attention, 
as it also affected other areas such as qualificati on requirements and procedures.   On the delineation 
between mandatory and voluntary st andards, the delegation noted that, for the former, some kind of 
legal authority was required to ensure compliance.  For voluntary standards, there was a question of 
how they would be defined, and the extent to whic h they should be subject to regulatory disciplines.  
If a court could rule that non-compliance was a cause for complaint, the standards were not 
necessarily voluntary.  The delegation noted that some professions were essentially unregulated, but 
had "voluntary" technical standards.     
18. On paragraph 5, the delegation sought clarification on whether the disciplines would be 
applicable to unscheduled measures such as technical standards in the form of a language 
requirement.  On paragraphs 9 and 27, they ask ed what was meant in the services context by 
"significant effect on trade of other Members".  Re garding paragraph 14, and the reference to where 
specific commitments were undertaken, the delegation said that, before deciding, it would perhaps be 
beneficial to look at whether such elements as tr ansparency disciplines could be developed and made 
generally applicable.  On paragraph 15, the dele gation asked how the meaning of "legitimate national 
policy objectives" would differ from the terms "legitimate objectives" and "national policy 
objectives".  On paragraph 19, the delegation asked whether Switzerland intended to require some sort 
of harmonization of technical standards having th e same national policy objectives, and whether 
application of the discipline could eventually lead to questioning the technical standard, or even the 
national policy objective.   
19. The delegation of China , on paragraph 18, wished to know the purpose for the inclusion of 
the paragraph, how the conformity  check could be implemented, a nd what follow-up actions would be 
required after the conformity check was done.  They  also hoped to hear more from Switzerland on the 
issue of voluntary versus mandatory standards.  Regarding paragraph 26, they asked whether 
reference should be made to paragraph 24, rather than Article 12.     
20. The delegation of Chile  wished to associate itself with other delegations' questions, for 
example with that of Hong Kong, China on the reas ons for using the term "legitimate national policy 
objectives".  Regarding question (iii) under paragraph 7, with respect to standardization bodies, they 
said it was important to have a specific discussion regarding the attribution of powers, and the 
possibility of having bodies which do not come unde r state jurisdiction generating standards.  The 
delegation also asked whether it seemed relevant to  seek other sources than standardization bodies in 
connection with technical barriers to trade.    
21. The delegation of Antigua and Barbuda  was particularly pleased with the manner in which 
Switzerland had dealt with issues related to S&D and technical assistance, and had borrowed heavily 
from the TBT agreement with respect to representati on and capacity constraints.  They were also 
pleased with the references to flexibility, incl uding time-limited exceptions.  They believed a 
fundamental issue was the need to clarify horizontal versus sectoral development of disciplines on 
standards.  They noted there were many internati onal standards in financial services, and said it would 
be interesting to have discussions on the horizontal  application of the disciplines.  The delegation 
agreed that the disciplines were cross-cutting enough,  but said perhaps there was also some need for 
sectoral development of disciplines.  More discu ssion on mandatory versus voluntary standards was 
needed, for instance on how it would work for servi ces, especially financial services.  The delegation 
suggested financial services might be used as a "labor atory" to test the application of disciplines.    S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 5 
 
 
22. The delegation of Japan  noted that technical standards had been one of the most difficult 
aspects of discussions on horizontal disciplines.  They  asked Switzerland's view on the fact that, as 
previous delegations had noted, there were fe wer services sectors, comp ared with goods, where 
international standards had been set.  On non-gove rnmental standardizing bodies, the delegation noted 
there sometimes was only de facto  governmental authority to set standards and, therefore, it was 
difficult to set a dividing line.   
23. The delegation of New Zealand  very much supported the approach of the paper, including on 
the right to regulate and the view that the horiz ontal and sectoral approaches were not mutually 
exclusive.  They appreciated that Switzerland wa s not attempting to formulate the substance of 
standards.  On mandatory versus voluntary standards, and on delegated authority, their questions were 
similar to those of Hong Kong, China.  They wished  to have examples of the type of links described 
in paragraph 9 of the paper, especially those from Switzerland's own experience.  They were also 
interested in further views on significant effects on trade, as well as on defining non-governmental standardizing bodies.  On paragraph 15, they were interested in how to ensure that measures by non-
governmental standardization bodies were not more trade restrictive than necessary.  On paragraph 
19, they had the same question as the European Comm unities, and said it seemed a great deal of work 
would be needed to underpin implementation.  On para graph 20, they were interested in definitions of 
relevant international standards.  On paragraph 26, th ey asked if "building state of the art" meant best 
practice.  They thought it was positive to have par ticular provisions on S&D.  On paragraph 30, they 
asked for further information on what would be cons idered relevant international organizations, and 
how to ensure active and representative participation by Members.   
24.  The delegation of Canada
, regarding the coverage of standards created by non-governmental 
bodies not acting under delegated government authority , asked how it related to the definition of a 
measure under the GATS, especially in terms of the provisions of Article I.       
25. The delegation of South Africa , regarding voluntary versus mandatory disciplines, asked how 
that would link with S&D provisions.  On para graph 6, regarding Singapore's question on 
international standards, they asked what was mean t by "other sectors", noting that some sectors, e.g. 
health, had important international standards.   Regarding paragraphs  33 and 35 on technical 
assistance, they emphasized the importance of having the institutional capacity to enforce standards, 
e.g. with respect to the cross-borde r supply of health services.   
26. The delegation of India  said the particularities of services, in  regard to parallels with the TBT 
agreement, needed further thought;  the lack of international standards in services was very 
significant.  They noted the diversity in the ability of  different sectors to establish technical standards, 
presumably due to differences in local conditions.  The delegation appreciated the in-depth references 
in the paper to S&D and technical assistance, and said they were fundamental aspects.   
27. The delegation of Barbados  found a number of interesting observations in the paper, notably 
the need to strike a balance between the right of Members to regulate, and not constituting 
unnecessary barriers to trade.  They also looked forward to the further elaboration of mandatory and 
voluntary standards, especially in regard to S&D as  mentioned by South Africa.  They welcomed the 
elements in paragraphs 20 to 23 on internati onal standards, as well as the provisions on S&D and 
technical assistance.  They attached particular im portance to the recognition that Members should be 
able to use international standards as appropriate to  their relevant policy needs and objectives.     
28. The delegation of Thailand  said Switzerland rightly pointed out, in paragraph 2, that the 
formulation of domestic regulations  must be responsive to changing the legal, social and economic 
environment.  Regarding the first question in pa ragraph 7, they believed that transparency was 
important, and that the concept of "no more burde nsome that necessary to ensure the quality of the 
service" should be present.   What made services so co mplex in the context of technical standards, the 
delegation stated, was that culture was always a co efficient, including such aspects as peer pressure,  S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 6  
 
and had a significant bearing on question (ii) in para graph 7.  More time was needed to reflect on 
question (iii), which was highly technical and complex.   
29. The delegation of the Philippines
 also commended Mexico for their previous work, and said 
they shared many of Switzerland's premises in paragr aphs 1 to 5 of the paper.  They were somewhat 
uncomfortable, however with the "legitimizing" of  national policy objectives in paragraph 15, and 
asked if Switzerland was possibility suggesting there might be "illegitimate national policy 
objectives".  They suggested questioning the legitimacy of the policy tool used to achieve the national 
policy objective, rather than qualifying the objective it self.  The delegation also noted Canada's points, 
and said that coverage of the standards creat ed by non-governmental bodies not acting under 
delegated governmental authority would seem to c ontradict the GATS definition and coverage of a 
measure.   
30. The delegation of Colombia  asked, from the Swiss perspective,  what the scope of legitimate 
national policy objectives would be, and what they would entail.  Given the lack of international 
standards, and the difficulties facing developing countr ies in the preparation of international standards 
in terms of services, they also asked about S&D a nd technical assistance to ensure standards would be 
complied with.  The delegation agreed with paragr aph 5, that any type of discipline that was 
developed should not run counter to Articles XVI and XVII, but noted it was sometimes not easy to make that distinction and asked if Switzer land could provide further details.     
31. The delegation of Senegal
, on paragraph 9, asked what "significant effect" meant.  Regarding 
the distinction in the last sentence, between manda tory versus voluntary standards, they asked for 
further clarification, noting that "reasonable" was a subjective criteria.  On paragraph 10, the last 
sentence, the delegation asked for which types of standards the notification requirements might be 
applicable.  On paragraph 14, the delegation asking fo r further clarification, and noted there could be 
various legal regimes for st andards within a Member.  
32. The delegation of Pakistan  asked if perhaps there was a n eed to make the paper more GATS 
specific.  The delegation suggested the Working Pa rty could elaborate more on some of the ideas 
contained in Mexico's paper, and enquired whethe r the work on technical standards might enter the 
domain of qualification requirements and procedures.  From the Secretariat consultations, they noted 
that many international organiza tions did not have the technical standards under discussion, and said 
that aspect should be kept under consideration. 
33. The delegation of Australia  said they were particularly interested in the distinction between 
voluntary and non-voluntary standards, as well as the i ssues raised by Canada.  They also wished to 
have deeper discussion of the equivalency issues ra ised in paragraph 19, as well as the issues raised 
by other Member regarding legitimate national policy objectives.   
34. The delegation of Korea  asked how technical standards were different from qualification 
requirements.  On paragraph 16, on RIAs, they asked  what was the role envisaged, what was meant by 
legal viability, and whether Switzerla nd had examples of their applica tion to services.  On paragraphs 
24-26, the delegation asked the reasons for any di stinction between transparency requirements for 
mandatory standards and those for voluntary standards.   
35. The delegation of Brazil  said that in cases where paragra ph 19 were to be applied, the other 
disciplines on technical standards appeared to be come secondary.  It might create a recognition 
system based on reciprocity, leading to "bilateralis m" of the approach.  The delegation asked whether 
the paragraph applied to both na tural and legal persons, in which case it might raise questions of 
overlapping between technical standa rds and qualification requirements.  
36. The delegation of Norway  was very interested in paragra ph 9, and wondered if Switzerland 
had been concerned about possible de facto National Treatment violations as a result of such technical  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 7 
 
 
standards.  They asked if Switzerland had cons idered applying the TBT Code of Good Conduct, 
which was applicable to non-governmental voluntary standards.   
37. The delegation of Singapore  noted that the TBT Agreement could serve as a starting point for 
developing disciplines on technical standards in servi ces, and that the TBT Agreement was referred to 
when negotiating the Accountancy Disciplines .  Members, however, should be mindful of the 
differences between goods and services.  The delegati on observed that paragraph 20 of the paper was 
an adaptation of TBT Art. 2.4.  Noting that Switzer land had used the concepts of “infant institutional 
development" or "fundamental technological probl ems”, the delegation asked Switzerland’s rationale 
for choosing those concepts.  
38. The delegation of Switzerland  said they were happy to have so many questions and 
comments.  On using the TBT Agreement as source for the paper, they said there were two major 
reasons.  First the objectives were the same, i.e. the balance between the right to regulate and having a framework of disciplines.  Second was that the TBT Agreement had already been heavily debated, 
and had proved to be a solid agreement, and th e Working Party could draw upon that experience.  
Regarding the differences between goods and servi ces, including the lack of international services 
standards, the delegation noted that the TB T Agreement had not only been drawn upon for 
international standards.  With few international sta ndards, there was an increa sed need for disciplines 
on technical standards.  Regarding mandatory vers us voluntary standards, Switzerland believed that 
voluntary standards created by non-governmental sta ndardizing bodies were very influential in certain 
professions, and therefore should be covered by di sciplines.  Nonetheless, there should be some 
linkage to governmental authority.  On the use of the term "measures" to cover non-governmental 
standardizing bodies, the delegation understood it w as not incompatible, but said the Working Party 
could have more discussions.   
39. Regarding use of the term "legitimate nationa l policy objectives", the delegation said they 
wished to give more historical background and to answer later.  On international standards, the 
delegation noted it was sometimes difficult for deve loping countries to comply, but said it would be 
less difficult than complying with many different  national standards.  Technical assistance could 
perhaps provide funding for developing countries to pa rticipate in creating inte rnational standards.  
Regarding the definition of technical standards in  paragraph 13, they had tried but could not go 
further.  On equivalency, the delegation noted the paper referred to mode 1 only.  They had 
considered a 90-day time limit, but preferred to leav e the possibility to Members.  Reference to the 
equivalency of policy objectives was used, because it see med easier to check than technical aspects.   
40.  The delegation of Mexico
 said they wished to address several questions by Members, the 
first of which was the matter of non-government al bodies and delegated authority.  Experience with 
the TBT agreement, and with free trade agreements that encompassed technical standards, enabled the 
delegation to state that Mexico  had never sought to establish obligations for such bodies.  The 
agreements were for governments, and so there w as an obligation in the TBT and elsewhere to see 
that non-governmental standardizing bodies accepted a number of rights and obligations.  In the case 
of the WTO, it was the Code of Good Conduct anne xed to the TBT agreement.  Therefore, the 
discussion as to whether the agreement applied to  non-governmental standardizing bodies was not as 
complex as it might seem.  In the end, as Norway ha d mentioned, Members were seeking to avoid that 
such bodies pursued discriminatory policies which harmed services suppliers of other States.  The final obligation would be incumbent upon government s, and so Mexico believed that Members would 
not be creating anything new by establishing such obligations. 
41. With respect to equivalency, the delegation stat ed that it was a trade facilitation tool existing 
in many agreements, and in the case of Mexico had been applied to services.  That was not a novelty, 
but rather was found in Article II:7 of the TBT agr eement.  Mexico had considered as equivalent the 
standards of other Members, and it was simply a way of permitting trade facilitation.  Regarding 
concerns over the application of TBT provisions  to services, Mexico believed the TBT had S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 8  
 
demonstrated its usefulness, and for many Member s had served as a basis for the drawing up of 
technical standards in services.  Regarding the differences between voluntary and mandatory standards, Mexico would address the issue in their PowerPoint presentation, and would offer concrete 
examples of the two types of standards.  With resp ect to the lack of international standards, it was 
something that Mexico had identified clearly in th eir contribution, and was problematic for services, 
yet it did not mean Members could not work on disciplin es with respect to technical standards.  In the 
case of goods, trade had led to the establishment of such standards, which in turn had led to trade 
facilitation.  The delegation believed a similar situation was now occurring with regard to 
international standards in services.   
42. The Chairperson
 noted there had been 26 or so interventions and two hours of discussion.  He 
concluded by suggesting that delega tions take note of the statements made, and revert to the paper at 
the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
India et al. Proposal on Qualification Requirements and Procedures   
 
43. The Chairperson  observed that Chile, India, Pakist an and Thailand had submitted a room 
document, entitled Proposed Elements for Disciplines on Qualification Requirements and 
Procedures .  He asked if the countries would like to introduce their paper.   
44. The delegation of India  introduced the paper, emphasizing that qualification requirements and 
procedures were a crucial area of disciplines under Article VI:4, premised upon a balance between the 
right to regulate and facilitating Member's specific commitments.  The paper did not suggest that 
harmonization was an objective.  Disciplines were important, because qualific ation requirements and 
procedures were very often a prerequisite for suppl ying a service, thereby affecting Market Access.  
The question of horizontal or sectoral applicability was better left open.  The relationship between 
Article VI:4 disciplines and Articles XVI/XVII needed to be kept in mind.  They had followed a two-
pronged approach, i.e. recognizing the problems enc ountered, and indicating a range of elements for 
possible solutions.  For example, one of the issues  encountered was differing levels of governments, 
and the consequent unpredictab ility and burdensomeness for services suppliers.  Other issues were 
inadequate information on requirement s and procedures, as well as the lack of international standards.   
45. The paper was not an attempt to "reinvent the wheel", but instead took account of existing 
provisions in the Accountancy Disciplines  and elsewhere.  Essential elements, in addition to 
transparency, were mechanisms a nd procedures to take account of foreign qualifications, including 
whether domestic procedures were applicable to foreign qualifications.  The first issue was the 
verification of educational requirements, followed by issues related to the ability to practice.  In cases 
where an applicant's qualifications were deficient, it was important to identify the deficiency, and the 
additional qualifications the services supplier need ed to meet the requirements.  In cases where 
additional "educational packages" were required, th e issue was whether they could be met only by 
further study in the host country, or in the home country as well.  Where educational systems were 
found to be comparable, a "harmonization exam" coul d be introduced to establish the equivalency of 
such qualifications.  A second aspect with regard to examination requirements was they should not 
include subjects not directly relevant to what was being assessed.  Residency in the host country, or 
experience in specific locations in the host country , should not be a prerequisite for eligibility for 
examinations, unless there were legitimate objectives to be met.  Another problem issue was language 
requirements, while recognizing they could someti mes be based on legitimate objectives such as 
ensuring the safety of the consumer.   
46. Issues raised in the paper related to the abilit y to practice and the assessment of professional 
competence, included work experience and training, and membership of professional associations.  As with the assessment of educational qualifications , there needed to be a clear delineation of any 
deficiency.  Membership in professional bodies could al so be taken into account, as an indicator of the 
standards applied in the home country.  Regarding qualification procedures, key issues included the  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 9 
 
 
usual issues related to transparency.  Other cr itical areas included those related to examination 
procedures, including frequency and eligibility for ex aminations.  Fees charged should have regard to 
the administrative costs involved.  A reasonable timeframe was required for the verification of 
qualifications;  it could not be an open-ended process.  Also import ant was the existence of review 
and appeal mechanisms.  Cutting across the issue of qualification requirements and procedures was 
somehow having a link between regulators and WTO Members.  The delegation reiterated that the 
paper was not about taking away the freedom of the regulator, or harmonizing across WTO Members, 
but rather looking at multilateral elements to main tain the balance between domestic regulations and 
specific commitments.   
47. Members welcomed the paper, and made the following preliminary comments:   
48. The delegation of Chile , as one of the co-sponsors, said it was a critical area that could affect 
Market Access.  They emphasized the importanc e of pursuing national policy objectives to the 
regulatory rights of Members, and said it should be carried out in an objective and impartial manner.  
There should be a balance between Market Access a nd domestic regulation affecting the supply of a 
particular service.  The delegation thought it was important to stress harmonization examinations 
which would facilitate the comparability of di fferent educational systems, as well as language 
requirements which were relevant when the provision of services did not necessarily require mastery of a particular language.  Also necessary were mechanisms for certifying professional competence.  
The delegation said it was important to bear in mind the relevance of such requirements, especially at 
the sub -federal level.   
49. The delegation of Egypt
 said it was an area of particular importance for discussions under 
Article VI:4, and the submission rightly highlighted  the impact on the effectiveness and credibility of 
Market Access commitments, particularly for ser vices suppliers under Mode 4.  Egypt shared a 
number of the problems indicated in the document, ma inly those related to recognition.  Key elements 
of the paper to be addressed were that harm onization of qualification requirements was not the 
purpose of discussions, and that it was essential that a ny disciplines to be developed take into account 
the different levels of development.   
50. The delegation of Switzerland  acknowledged that the topic of disciplines on qualification 
requirements and procedures was extremely comple x, and an ideal outcome probably was possible 
only at a high administrative cost.  They noted that the Accountancy Disciplines  already contained 
elements on transparency, proportionality and the role that MRAs could play.  There were difficulties, 
however, in concluding MRAs, and market acc ess could be rendered meaningless if relevant 
qualifications were not recognized.  The delegation appreciated the points in the paper that it was not 
the intention to seek harmonization or to diminish the right to regulate.   Rega rding different levels of 
government, the delegation agreed there were multip le and varying requirements and procedures at 
different levels of government, and said they mirrore d the political structure.  In Switzerland there had 
been some recent harmonization, but there was no inte ntion to further harmonize at the federal level.  
On the other hand, new attempts had been made to impose recognition of qualifications between 
cantons, which had encountered some resistance .  Regarding examination requirements, the 
delegation noted that examinations in Switzerland were usually not available in all four national 
languages due to the costs, and said it would be diffic ult, for example, to justify the introduction of 
examinations in Spanish.   
51. On Part III of the paper, under qualification requirements, paragraph A(ii), the delegation 
asked for examples and more details;  they were not sure if regulatory authorities actually had such 
criteria for all services, and consequently the co ncept might be difficult to apply.  Regarding 
additional "educational packages", unde r paragraph A(iii), they asked for more information, i.e. who 
would make the packages available, who would desi gn them, etc.  The delegation also asked if the 
harmonization exam would be the same for all Me mbers, and how educational systems would be 
found comparable without concluding an MRA.  On paragraph A(v) on language requirements, the S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 10  
 
delegation asked for further clarification, e.g. how a language requirement for surveyors would be 
considered.  On paragraph B(iii), on qualificati on requirements, they noted that making exams 
frequently available and available abroad could be expensive, even if fees reflected administrative 
costs.  In the case of land surveyors for Switzerland, less that 5 foreign professionals ask to sit the exam;  making it available abroad would proba bly be more burdensome than necessary for the 
authorities. 
52. The delegation of China
 said the specific mention of diffe rent levels of government in the 
paper was an issue of great interest.  They wished to hear from the proponents of the paper, as well as 
those Members which were federal by constitution,  how the Working Party could find ways to 
address the issue, through the development of  multilateral disciplines under Article VI:4 on 
qualification requirements and procedures, as well as on other elements such as licensing and 
technical standards.  China presumed that Members with a federal system would encounter the same 
or a similar degree of barriers from the different set s of requirements or procedures exercised by other 
Members with federal systems as those that did not.  Therefore, they wished to seek views from those 
Members how to best approach the issue.  In th at regard, China also wi shed to thank the Swiss 
Delegation for its explanation. 
53. The delegation of Australia  said the paper had generated co nsiderable interest in their 
education department and among the authorities deali ng with accreditation, and that they could agree 
with much of the contents.  Regarding some of the i ssues raised in the paper, they noted that Australia 
was a signatory to both the UNESCO Lisbon and As ia-Pacific conventions.  Australia's policies and 
procedures regarding proper and fair recognition, transp arency, timeliness, costs, level of verification, 
and appeal/review were in accordance with those c onventions.  While generally agreeing with most 
the paper, they had some preliminary thoughts.  Concerning problems associated with levels of 
government, and jurisdictional barriers for recognition, they wished to draw attention to the MRA that 
commenced in 1993 between all Australian states and territories.  Under the MRA, a person registered 
or licensed to practise an occupation in one ju risdiction was entitled to practise an equivalent 
occupation in any other jurisdiction without the n eed to undergo further assessment of qualifications 
or experience.  The key intention of the legislati on was to provide an impetus for registration bodies 
to seek to harmonize, and to minimize differences in registration requirements and standards between 
jurisdictions.   
54. On Section III, paragraph A(iii) of the paper, Australia did not agree on the establishment of a 
harmonization examination for educat ional "equivalence".  They could agree, however, to a proposal 
that, if education systems were considered by bot h Members to be comparable, that the relevant 
professional bodies should be working together and moving toward a harmonized measurement 
system.  In addition, Australia considered an attempt to achieve  "equivalence of qualifications" as 
unrealistic.  While "equivalent criteri a and/or standards" towards recognition was viable, they felt that 
determining qualifications as equivale nt was not.  On the term "equiva lence", Australia disagreed with 
the use of that term throughout the paper, stating they believed it was not possible for two 
qualifications from different countries to be compar ed in terms of direct "equivalence", given the 
different educational philosophies, objectives and c ourse structures in the education systems of the 
world.  Australia's preference was for the term "com parable" rather than "equivalent".  The delegation 
also sought clarification on the specific meaning of the term "deficiency requirements" in the last 
sentence of paragraph A(iii), asking if it referred to a situation where there was no agreement about 
education systems being comparable.   
55. The delegation of Bolivia , regarding qualification requirements, said they appreciated the 
procedures in the paper for improving the recogn ition of degrees.  To make the system more 
operational, the delegation also said that it would be useful to have some type of assistance for 
developing countries.    S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 11 
 
 
56. The delegation of New Zealand  said that in general they supported the paper's two-pronged 
approach of problem identification and possible el ements of disciplines to be considered.  The 
problems that New Zealand's exporters faced appeared to be clearly identified.  The delegation stated 
that, in further comments on the paper, that they might wish to look at the degree of prescriptiveness 
than any such disciplines would require.  The delega tion noted that a number of different approaches 
might yield the sort of results desired.  In Ne w Zealand's case, they looked towards competency 
assessment as the main method for verifying the co mpetence of foreign professions, and would expect 
any disciplines developed by the Working Party to include a variety of regulatory approaches.   
57. The delegation of Mexico  supported the paper, and said it contained the most important 
elements for discussing the topic.  The delegation stated they agreed w ith the perspective and  main  
elements of the paper, and reserved their right to ask further questions.   
58. The delegation of the United States  agreed there should be transparency in procedures related 
to qualifications, and that examin ations and other procedures rela ted to qualifications should not 
constitute barriers to trade and should be implemen ted in a non-discriminatory way.  Article VI 
protected every Member's right to regulate domestica lly.  It should be noted that the primary function 
of licensure and other authorizati ons was to regulate the domestic provision of services.  They sought 
clarification on whether the paper intended to mix the principles of transparency and non-discrimination with Market Access and the role of the regulator.  The role of the regulator was to 
regulate domestic regimes and, thanks to Article VI , that should be done in a non-discriminatory and 
transparent manner.  However, the suggestions in the paper went beyond the scope of actions of 
domestic regulators.  
59. The delegation of South Africa
 generally supported the thrust of the paper.  They noted that 
the paper recognized the right to regulate, but said that at times they had found that the right to 
regulate could sometimes interfere with Market Access conditions.  Therefore, it was necessary to 
strike a balance to make Market Access conditions  more favourable to services suppliers, many of 
which were SMEs and sometimes unable to comp ly with burdensome regulatory obligations.   
60. The delegation of Singapore  said the document raised a number of complex issues, that might 
potentially have implications for systems relating to qualification requirements and procedures.  As 
they had highlighted earlier, the starting point for negotiations on all elements of the Article VI:4 mandate should be the recognition of the right of Members to regulate and to introduce new 
regulations.  Second, there should also be no attemp t to formulate the substance of the regulations 
covered by the  various elements of Article VI:4.  Rega rding paragraph A(ii), the delegation asked 
how the prima facie  recognition of foreign qualifications  and the non-harmonization of such 
requirements/standards could be reconciled.  Many in the Working Party would agree that 
harmonization was not desirable, and the that issue of  equivalency should be approached with caution.  
The delegation shared some of the points high lighted by Australia, including that about the 
harmonization exam.  Regarding paragraphs B(iv) and B(v), th e delegation asked how existing 
provisions, namely Articles VI:2 and VI:6, might already cover those aspects.   
61. The delegation of Canada
 underscored that recognition was of  key interest to Canada, and 
they considered it to be an important component of and contributor to facilitating the movement of 
service providers.  They asked which secti ons of the paper were drawn from the Accountancy 
Disciplines  or other sources, and if they could ela borate on the suggestion regarding cooperation 
between regulators and/or professional associations with regulatory powers of WTO Members.  
Regarding China's question on sub-federal regula tions, the delegation indicated that Canada's 
domestic service providers also faced the same ch allenges of varying requirements and procedures as 
foreign service providers.     
62. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said the paper was an important contribution to filling 
the gaps in developing regulatory disciplines.  The Working Party was now at the stage of identifying S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 12  
 
possible elements that could be developed into regulatory disciplines.  The delegation believed it 
would be important to focus on the general shape or  principles of elements, and perhaps to leave the 
details of the operation of those elements to a later stage.  They noticed that a pragmatic and realistic 
approach had been taken in the paper, by first looki ng at the problems, many of which were reflected 
in the Examples paper.  In proposing solutions, the delegation also noticed that many of the elements 
were based upon the ideas or spirit in the Accountancy Disciplines , for instance taking account of 
foreign qualifications.  Indeed, the element of provi ding adequate procedures to verify the competence 
of professionals was already in Article VI:6.   
63. The delegation echoed the view of other delegations that it would be beneficial to leave aside 
the issue of application on a horizontal or sectoral basis, noting the two did not need to be mutually 
exclusive.  On the relationship between Article VI:4 and Article XVII, they were of the view that the 
Accountancy Disciplines  work had left some gaps .  Regarding different levels of government, they did 
see how some Members considered repetitive require ments and procedures as potential barriers to 
trade;  considering that harmonization was difficu lt to achieve, the question was whether there were 
ways to address the problems identified.  Rega rding mechanisms for taking account of foreign 
qualifications, the proposal was a good starting point  for discussion on how to expand or elaborate 
upon paragraph 19 of the Accountancy Disciplines .  The delegation wished to reflect more on the role 
that could be played by any type of harmonizati on examination, for example whether it was always 
the best solution.  Regarding the question of administrative burden, the delegation noted it was a more general issue, e.g. also for transparency discip lines, and stated they did not see the administrative 
burden of the proposals in the paper as any greater than for proposals in other papers.   
64. The delegation of Chinese Taipei
 endorsed the importance of disciplines, as noted in 
paragraph 3 of the paper, for Market Access.  Re garding qualification require ments, paragraph A(ii), 
the delegation asked for elaboration regarding equi valent criteria/standards as applied to domestic 
recognition of qualifications.  As qualification requirements governed th e characteristic of the service, 
which were related to quality, the delegation asked to what extent regulators could prove that unduly 
burdensome requirements were not being a pplied to foreign qualifications.   
65. The delegation of Kenya  said they also supported the general thrust of the paper, and noted 
they had often expressed their concern previ ously regarding qualification requirements and 
procedures as potential  barriers to the movement  of natural persons, esp ecially for professional 
services.  The delegation agreed with the paper that the two main areas of focus should be to single out common multilateral elements to limit the scope of  discretion in order to minimize distortions, as 
well as transparency provisions to help ensure the predictability of Market Access commitments 
undertaken by Members.     
66. The delegation of Japan
 said they had long looked forward to hearing more proposals on 
qualification requirements and procedures.  Regard ing paragraph A(ii), like Hong Kong, China, they 
wished to have clarification rega rding the intention to include elem ents of Article VI:6 into the 
disciplines under Article VI:4.  On paragraph A(iii) , the delegation said it seemed difficult to have 
information on the education systems in all countries in order to satisfy the requirements, as well as to 
provide education packages in all WTO Member c ountries.  Regarding language requirements, in 
paragraph A(v), they noted that Japanese services supp liers would be happy to have examinations in 
foreign countries in Japanese.  On paragraph A(vii), the delegation asked what was meant in regard to 
the mechanism for registration and/or licensing to practice the profession.   
67. The delegation of the Philippines  said the paper complemented previous initiatives.  
Regarding horizontal versus sectoral application of the disciplines, they noted that many elements of 
the proposal addressed professional services.  The dele gation also stated they wished to examine the 
problems identified and elements suggested in the context of the paper by Colombia on visa 
procedures.  On paragraphs A(ii), A(vi) and B(iv ) for example, they found that such mechanisms 
often seemed to be undertaken by authorities who were responsible for ascertaining of qualifications  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 13 
 
 
for a visa or work permit.  The delegation also reiterated their own perspective that qualification 
requirements and procedures could have Market Access and National Treatments aspects, to be 
addressed by Articles XVI and XVII, as well as regulatory aspects to be address by Article VI:4 disciplines.  They did not see any elements whic h suggested confusion or overlap between those 
aspects in the paper.   
68. The delegation of Colombia
 supported the statements made by India in introducing the 
proposal.  They were convinced it was necessary to de velop disciplines, in order to ensure effective 
Market Access and the meaningfulness of specifi c commitments.  Their service providers had 
identified the lack of adequate, transparent mechan isms for the certification of professionals;  the 
absence of procedures to facilitate the negotiatio n of MRAs;  the multiplicity and variety of 
requirements procedures at different government levels;  and excessive requirements and conditions 
to carry out evaluations as real problems which they  faced.  Regarding the problems identified in Part 
II, they endorsed the statement by the Philippines, and noted the connection with the problems raised 
earlier in their own paper.  Regarding elements fo r future disciplines, the delegation highlighted  
transparency, reasonable requirements and procedur es to ensure measures not being more burdensome 
than necessary, the establishment of  mechanisms to facilitate the verification of professional skills, 
and technical assistance for implementation.  The dele gation also said it would be interesting to have 
information on how mechanisms worked in bilatera l agreements to facilitate the certification of 
professional proficiency.   
69. The delegation of Brazil  said the paper raised a series of very relevant issues, especially from 
the perspective of developing countries, for the treatment of a fundament aspect of domestic 
regulation.     
70. The delegation of Thailand , as one of the co-sponsors, wished to reaffirm Members' right to 
regulate, and to introduce new regulations, in or der to meet national policy objectives, as well as to 
draw Members' attention to the real problems iden tified in Section II.  They believed the elements 
proposed in Section III could be fully addressed.  Regarding Switzer land's question, on the frequency 
of exams, the delegation believed the frequency should be reasonable, and based on demand.  
Regarding the lack of MRAs, they also noted th at recognition could be extended autonomously, based 
on existing educational exchange programs, etc.   
71. The delegation of the European Communities  noted that the EC had long experience with the 
recognition of educational and pr ofessional qualifications, including how difficult those processes 
could be.  Regarding paragraph 10 in Section II, th e delegation said they were surprised, and asked if 
additional education, training and experience require ments were themselves considered to be unduly 
complex and burdensome, or in ma ny cases considered to have become so.  They agreed with 
Australia that equivalence might be unrealistic.  The delegation also asked for clarification on the 
concept of deficiency requirements, and whether it could be applied to the verification of professional 
competence in paragraph A(vi).   
72. The delegation of the Dominican Republic  said it was of great importance that the issues were 
put on the table, and emphasized different levels of  government as one of the elements of the paper 
for further thought.   
73. The delegation of Pakistan , as one of the co-sponsors, said the paper reflected the problems 
faced by their services exporters.  Regarding the questions raised on language and the costs of 
examinations, the delegation emph asized those were difficult issues and that the wording of the 
proposals was still preliminary.  They noted that paragraph A(v) focused on two aspects of language 
requirements, i.e. those for examinations and those for practice.  Regarding costs, the delegation said 
the ideas presented in the paper, such as offering exams electronically, were intended to also be 
implemented in developing countries as well, as cost-saving measures for both governments and services suppliers.      S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 14  
 
74. The delegation of Turkey
 agreed with the necessity to pr ovide objectivity and transparency 
with regard to qualification requirements and procedures, and said they should not be more 
burdensome than necessary.  Some of the ideas on examination requirements, however, such as 
conducting exams in other countries, could be burdensome upon the host country.  Similarly, the delegation believed that additiona l educational packages could be difficult to provide.  Regarding 
fees, they believed the paper offered useful ideas.   
75. The delegation of Chile
, regarding the U.S. concerns, stated  that within the right to regulate 
there should be an assurance that measures are reas onable and objective, and are administered in a 
reasonable and objective manner, i.e. the right to re gulate should not be arbitrary.  Regarding the time 
required for creating an equivalency system, the delegation said more reflection was need.  The  
Working Party needed to find a system to determ ine the equivalency of procedures, the delegation 
stated.   
76. The delegation of India  thanked the many delegations for their questions and comments.  
They noted that the proposal was a first attempt, a nd said the sponsors were open to the issue of what 
Members considered feasible.  Regarding flexibilit y, the delegation said there was no intention to 
suggest only one solution, and Members were enc ourage to indicate alternatives.  The delegation 
reiterated that the intention of the proposal was not to  create harmonization, but rather to reaffirm that 
the right to regulate should not prevent a service supplier from supplying the service.  Regarding Part II of the paper, the delegation noted that the issue of differing levels of governments was difficult, and 
again encouraged Members to indicate alternatives.  On paragraph 10, they believed such regulations 
were not intrinsically burdensome, but could become so.   
77. Regarding the disciplines in Part III, the delegati on, with respect to paragraph A(ii), said that 
unless there were legitimate policy objectives to the contrary, similar standard s could be applied to 
foreign suppliers as well.  On steps for assessing qu alifications, they did not see a contradiction, 
stating that applying similar standards for assessment criteria did not suggest that harmonization was required.  On paragraph A(iii), the delegation noted  that the term "education package" had perhaps 
caused some concerns, and said it did not imply a read y made set of educational elements, but merely 
those elements needed to remedy any deficiency in meeting the requirements.  Likewise, the term 
"harmonization exam" was perhaps also somewhat c onfusing, and was intended for situations where 
education systems were already quite similar.  On language requirements, the delegation said it was 
not intended for exams to be held in all languages,  but instead that any language requirements be 
reasonable.   
78. On qualification procedures, on the issue of costs,  the delegation said they would be borne by 
the service supplier, and that it was necessary to stri ke a balance between costs and intended benefits.  
On the issue of reasonable time fram es, they noted that, while in the Accountancy Disciplines  
Members had seen fit to indicate a time frame of one year, which might serve as a guideline, the issue was whether the lack of a reasonable time frame could prevent a supplier from providing a service.  
Regarding Article 19 of the Accountancy Disciplines , the delegation said they had examined it, but 
found it to be not really adequate.   Regarding cooperation and consultative measures, they thought it 
might be a good idea.  The delegation also aske d the U.S. delegation for clarification on which 
elements in the paper they considered went beyond  domestic regulation.  They indicated the paper 
could be transformed into a JOB document in the near future. 
79. The Chairperson
 concluded by thanking delegations fo r their comments, and suggesting that 
Members take note of the statements made and revert to the paper at the next meeting.  It was so 
agreed . 
 
   S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 15 
 
 
Mexico's Presentation on Technical Standards  
 
80. The Chairperson  observed that Mexico had provided copi es at the back of the room (a more 
detailed version) of their PowerPoint presentation.3  He then offered the floor to Mexico for their 
presentation, after noting the large number of items still on the agenda and the limited time remaining.   
81. The representative of Mexico  noted that the first part of the presentation was a summary of 
the obligations contained in the TBT agreement a nd the various chapters of free trade agreements 
related to technical standards.  He would limit hi mself to the second part of the presentation, which 
started with the Mexican technical standards.  He  noted that the Mexican legal system was based on 
the European continental system, and so the writte n laws were the fundamental basis of rights and 
obligations, and the judicial laws did not have aut hority, except for the courts.  Mexican had a law on 
mutual recognition and standardization, which cove red different aspects which he dealt with at the 
previous meeting as well as in this presentation.  He  stated, categorically, that in Mexico the use of 
technical regulations was linked to the protection of legitimate objectives, and the respect for the principles of proportionality, transparency and due process.   
82. The law recognized clearly the right of au thorities to adopt and implement technical 
regulations, and so was a fundament al principle in Mexican legislation.  As of 1992, Mexico had a 
new legal system, which basically recognized the need for regulation to be linked to legitimate 
objectives, together with unified procedures, tran sparency, representativeness, etc.  One important 
element of the law was that it referred to both goods and services, the reason for which was that, 
historically, international standardizing bodies such  as the ISO had included both goods and services 
in their definitions of technical regulations and standards. 
83. The organizations involved in standardization were the national consultative standardization 
committees, which were basically the bodies that prep ared obligatory technical regulations.  Mexico 
also had national standardization bodies, which issued voluntary standards, as well as national 
technical standardization committees which issued vo luntary standards on behalf of the government.  
The national consultative standardization committees, were bodies that prepared technical regulations.  
All interested sectors made up those committees,  and for each government agency there was a 
committee.  Decisions were taken by consensus, or  by qualified majority in exceptional cases.  There 
were 21 consultative committees, which needed to coor dinate in order to avoi d duplication, and they 
met once every 3 months.  The national standardizati on bodies were juridical persons that dealt with 
voluntary standards, and had to be registered with the Ministry of the Economy.  They had to have 
national coverage, and participate in  international standardization activities.  In the case of Mexico the 
law obliged them to adopt the Code of Good Prac tice annexed to the TBT agreement.  When these 
bodies did not exist, the Ministry of the Economy set up national technical standardization committees, and those committees had the same principles as organizations;  there were 37 currently.  
The body issuing voluntary standards was the government, through the Ministry of the Economy.  
When there was no private standardizing body, it wa s the government that took on the responsibility. 
84. Regarding the regulatory process, as previous  explained, Mexico had a programme of 
regulatory impact assessment (RIA) which was no tified to the WTO and the countries with which 
Mexico had FTAs.  The competent authority or agency prepared a first draft, and that draft was submitted to the committee for 55 days for comments, then the agency had 30 days to respond to the 
comments that the committee formulated.  There were  standardization meetings that took place and, 
during that period the agency had to carry out RIAs  which, as had been explained in Mexico's paper 
                                                     
 
3 At the formal meeting on 22 November 2004, Members continued to discuss Mexico's paper on 
technical standards, entitled Mexico's Experience of Disciplines on Technical Standards a nd Regulations in 
Services,  circulated as S/WPDR/W/30,  dated 24 September 2004.  In response to the questions and requests 
posed by delegations, Mexico had offered to make a PowerPoint presentation at the 8 February 2005 meeting. S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 16  
 
(S/WPDR/W/30), was a document which must accompany each technical regulation and must be presented to the commission, which had 30 days to make comments and to publish a technical regulation.  It must have the approval of this co mmission, and any interested person could consult the 
RIA.    
85. After the RIA, the draft technical regulati on was published, and the WTO and the contact 
points of countries where Mexico had FTAs were notif ied.  The comments were then reviewed after a 
60 day period, the answers to the comments were published, and then the final publication of the 
regulation was complete.  A standard could not enter into force until 60 days after it was published;  that was to allow for individuals to take the necess ary measures to comply with the regulation.  Then 
there was a post-regulation process, which incl uded the publication of conformity assessment 
procedures, and a notice for accreditation and ap proval bodies who carried out the conformity 
assessments.  Once the standard came into effect, it was verified in customs, and the duties for goods 
were identified.  Then there was an inspection by  different bodies, for example the Ministry of the 
Economy, the Ministry for Consumer Protection, or the Ministry of the Environment for environmental protection.  
86. An example of a technical regulation for services was the norm 020, issued by the Ministry of 
Health, "For providing services of medical attenti on in mobile units type ambulances", the objective 
of which was to protect human health.  Monitoring of the technical regulation was done by the Ministry of Health, as well as the health authorities in each state.  The regulation was referenced to 
standards from the WHO, and include d the type of qualifications required for ambulance staff.  The 
second example was norm 062, for "Phytosanitary requi rements and specifications for the import of 
vegetables and by-products by means of mail or courier services companies," with the legitimate 
objective the protection of plant health.  The th ird example was a tourism standard, norm 011, for 
"Requirements of safety, informati on and operation for the providers of tourist services of tourism of 
adventure," with the legitimate objective the protec tion of human life and health, and the protection of 
consumers.  The fourth example was norm 008, "Tec hnical requirements for the authorized providers 
of the public service of air transportation and of th e service of private air commercial transportation," 
with the legitimate objective the protection of huma n life and the communications infrastructure.  The 
fifth example was norm 125, "Minimum informati on requirements for the providers of freight 
transport services," with the legitimate objective being consumer protection.     
87. Technical standards, as noted previously in Me xico's paper, concerne d documents which had 
as an object to define quality characteristics.  Th is had a voluntary nature but, in the case of Mexico, 
those standards were compulsory, or became compul sory standards when a user voluntarily declared 
they were complying with the standards, or wh en the standards were referred to in technical 
regulations of the government.  Despite the lack of  direct governmental recognition, those bodies did 
have to comply with certain disciplines.  In some cases, the government used the standards of private 
bodies in order to protect legitimate objectives.  In the case of Mexico it had an impact on 
international trade, because it was compulsory fo r government procurement.  Two examples were 
given of voluntary standards.  The first was a standard for "Requirements of functioning for workshops that provide the services of repair and ma intenance of electrical domestic appliances", with 
the legitimate objective of ensuring quality requirement s and consumer protection.    Another standard 
was for "Specifications to be required to the supp liers of equipments and services related to pressure 
irrigation systems", with the legitimate objective of ensuring quality requirements for service delivery 
and consumer protection.  A third standard d ealt with the qualifications of hotels.     
88. In regard to compatibility, some examples of how Mexico regulated compatibility were, for 
example, the existence of procedures or alterna tive procedures, or the acceptance of international 
standards, and the topic of equivalence, which implied a full recognition of a foreign technical 
regulation, standard or conformity assessment.  Me xico had negotiated in the framework of NAFTA a 
very detailed conformity assessment agreement, wh ich had not yet been implemented.  Regarding 
MRAs, government approval was required, and Mexico  currently had about 15 such agreements for  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 17 
 
 
technical standards, none of which involved servic es.  To complete the presentation, the delegate 
raised the issue of accreditation, i.e. checking th at the bodies monitoring the fulfilment of technical 
standards had the necessary technical capacity. 
89. The Chairperson then opened the floor for comments on Mexico's presentation, as well as on 
their earlier paper.  Members welcomed Mexico's presentation, and made the following comments.   
90. The delegation of Switzerland  said the presentation shed light on some of the topics 
incorporated in their paper, and showed the diversity  of technical standards.  They said it would be 
interesting to compare how some of the examples  presented by Mexico were dealt with in other 
countries, including Switzerland, as well as to illustra te how technical standards in some countries 
would fall under the disciplines in Switzerland's proposal, while in other countries they would not.       
91. The delegation of China  raised the issue of "overlaps," firstly between qualification 
requirements and technical standards, e.g. for medi cal doctors in the ambulance example provided by 
Mexico, and secondly between goods and services, e.g. as shown for vegetables in the courier services 
example. 
92. The delegation of Colombia  said they had very similar elements to those outlined by Mexico, 
particularly regarding the case of goods.  They asked for more information on equivalence, e.g. in the 
context of NAFTA.   
93. The delegation of Japan  asked for information on  why Article VI:4 did not include the term 
technical regulations, noting that in the TBT agreem ent, as well as within international organizations, 
there was a clear distinction between technical  regulations and technical standards.   
94. The delegation of Hong Kong, China , noting that under government procurement technical 
standards became mandatory, enquired whether th e same situation would apply for conformity 
assessment.  If that were the case,  foreign suppliers would be requi red to meet both criteria.  The 
delegation stated that the Working Party might ther efore need to reflect further to ensure that 
disciplines on technical standards did not have unintended effects, for example on government 
procurement.  Regarding the question raised by Jap an, they suggested that Members should not read 
too much into the omission of the term "technical  regulations";  instead, the crucial question was 
whether they could pose unnecessary barriers to trad e.  The delegation repeated their observation from 
the previous meeting that both the U.S. and Mexi can papers had noted the existence of various 
regulatory elements in FTAs, and said it would be u seful if the Secretariat could compile an overview 
of such provisions in the FTAs notified to the WTO.   
95. The delegation of Singapore , regarding the relevance of th e TBT agreement, said Members 
should be mindful of the distinction between goods and services.  As stated in paragraph 13 of 
Mexico's paper, for example, they  had no specific provisions in their FTAs for technical standards and 
regulations for services;  instead, Mexico had generi c provisions which applied equally to both goods 
and services.  The delegation asked if Mexico, in  enforcing the FTA agreements, had faced any 
difficulties in applying such provisions to services.     
96. The delegation of Mexico  thanked all of the delegations who had asked questions, and said 
they would attempt to reply.  On the question of  the overlap between qualification requirements and 
technical standards, the delegation said there were many areas where it would appear that various aspects appeared to be interlinked, and therefore a degree of harmonization of regulatory provisions 
might be useful.  Regarding the overlap between goods and services, they emphasized that the work 
on regulatory disciplines would be with respect to th e services aspects.  With respect to Colombia's 
questions, they noted that the TBT and SPS agreements  already stated that, if local provisions were 
violated, the national government had responsibility, and that similar provisions were found in FTAs.  
Regarding equivalence, the delegation said it had not  been used much in FTA s, specifically because it S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 18  
 
implied unilateral recognition.  Regarding Japan's ques tion, they stated that Article VI:4 left open the 
definition of technical standards for services.  With  regard to conformity assessment, the delegation 
agreed with Hong Kong, China's observations, but no ted that not all Members applied such technical 
standards requirements to government procurement.  With regard to Singapore's comments, they 
stated there were some problems in enforcement, but that the authorities were increasingly finding 
technical standards as the practical way to regulate services.   
97. The Chairperson
, regarding Japan's question, noted that the 1999 Secretariat background 
paper S/WPPS/W/9 did provide some background.  He then asked Members whether they supported 
the proposal by Hong Kong, China to have the Secretariat to compile a listing of domestic regulation 
provisions in FTAs. 
98. The delegation of Korea  asked if, in addition to Hong Kong, China's suggestion, the 
Secretariat could also provide references on the l ack of international standards in services.   
99. The delegation of Mexico  supported Korea's request, and s uggested that the Working Party 
could ask the ISO and other Geneva-based  organizations for information.   
100. The delegation of the United States  said they could consider a listing of FTA and RTA 
regulatory provisions, if it was purely factual bac kground information, and the referenced provisions 
explicitly fell within the categories of transparency , licensing, qualifications and technical standards 
as mentioned by Hong Kong, China.  They said the S ecretariat should not be placed in the position of 
having to make a judgement on the classification of particular provisions.   
101. The Chairperson  asked the Secretariat, subject to the agreed caveats, to prepare the listing of 
domestic regulatory provisions, and asked if Members approved the request by Korea and Mexico to 
ask the ISO and other organizations for information.  
102. The delegation of Canada  said that, in terms of tasking the Secretariat with initiatives, 
Members needed to keep in mind the various elemen ts of the Article VI:4 work programme.  They 
hoped that when Members examined their various initia tives, at some point they also looked at the 
overall "package" in terms of domestic regulation, and to  decide if they wished to have a focus.     
103. A representative of the Secretariat  noted that, as part of the consultations with international 
profession organizations as requested by Members, the Secretariat did enquire about their regulatory activities.  A number of organizations had provided responses, as recorded in the Secretariat paper (Results of Secretariat Consultations with In ternational Professional Services Organizations , 
JOB(03)/126/Rev.4, dated 15  November 2004).   
104. The Chairperson
 observed that footnote 3 to GATS Ar ticle VI:5b defined the scope of 
relevant international organizations, as those member ship was open to the relevant bodies of at least 
all Members of the WTO.  In terms of the request to consult with the ISO and other organizations, he 
wondered if it might be best if colleagues looked again at the available  information, and to come back 
to the subject next time if it was felt there might be further useful information.   
105. The Chairperson  concluded the agenda item by sugges ting that Members take note of the 
comments made on Mexico's presentation and paper, and noting that the Working Party had requested 
the Secretariat to prepare a listing of domestic  regulatory provisions.    It was so agreed . 
Colombia's Paper on  Visa Procedures  
 
106. The Chairperson  then turned to Colombia's paper, entitled Examples of Measures Relating to 
Administrative Procedures for Ob taining Visas or Entry Permits , circulated as S/WPDR/W/29 dated 7 
July 2004.  He noted that, as recorded in the Re port on the Meeting, Members had made further  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 19 
 
 
comments at the previous WPDR meeting, followed  by responses from Colombia.  He asked if the 
delegation of Colombia wished to make any initia l comments before he opened the floor for further 
discussion.  
107. The delegation of Colombia  expressed gratitude for the additional questions on the document.  
They found it appropriate to discuss measures re lating to administrative procedures for obtaining 
entry permits since, in their view, in the discussi ons Member had not yet reached any conclusions.  
They thought that, if Members went further into the questions and issues, it was obvious there was a 
relationship between some of the concerns raised in  the document and some of the elements of Article 
VI:4.   
108. The delegation of Australia  noted that Colombia had asked whether measures imposed by 
immigration authorities fell within the ambit of GATS Article VI:4 and the Annex on the Movement 
of Natural Persons.  They wished to give Australia's  views, and to start at the beginning by referring 
to GATS Article I.  Article I:1 of GATS provided that "measures by Members affecting trade in services" fell within the scope of the Agreement, "t rade in services" being defined as the supply of a 
service via one of the four "mode" set out in Article I:2.  Further detail as to "measures by Members" 
was supplied in Article I:3, which stated that such  measures were those taken by central, regional or 
local governments and authorities, and non-governme ntal bodies in the exercise of powers delegated 
by such governments or authorities.   
109. In a general sense, therefore, the scope of GATS with regard to governmental measures was 
broad.  In contrast, however, Article VI:4 referre d to "measures relating to qualification requirements 
and procedures, technical standards and licensing re quirements".  This express limitation seemed to 
suggest that this Article was intended to capture only certain types of measures (for which the Council 
for Trade in Services shall develop "any necessary disciplines"), as opposed to any measure "affecting 
trade in services".  Therefore, unless a visa or entry permit could be considered as a type of license, it 
would appear to Australia that Article VI:4 did not apply to the measures imposed by immigration 
authorities with regard to entry visas and permits.  Or dinary usage of those terms, and the fact that 
elsewhere in the Agreement (the Annex on Movement of Natural Pe rsons) the term "visa" was used, 
suggesting that Article VI:4 was not intende d to capture measures relating to visas. 
110. Similarly, qualification procedures were genera lly understood to refer to academic and/or 
professional qualifications required in order to be authorized to supply a service.  In the Accountancy 
Disciplines , disciplines for domestic regulation pursuant to  Article IV:4 had been adopted for that 
sector of professional services.  The delegation said they were interested in knowing whether the 
issues raised by Colombia in its paper were disc ussed in the Working Party on Professional Services 
(WPPS) during the time they were developing the Accountancy Disciplines .  The Annex made clear 
that nothing in the GATS prevented Members fro m applying measures to regulated entry and 
temporary stay of natural persons on their territory , subject to the proviso that those measures were 
not applied in such a manner as to nullify or impa ir benefits accruing to a Member under specific 
commitments.  Some to the measures listed by Colombia were measures regulating entry of natural 
persons, and would therefore fall w ithin the scope of the Annex, a nd were potentially covered by 
GATS provisions such as GATS Articles II, VI:1, VI:5, VI:6 and XVII.   
111. Given that visa availability and procedures f undamentally affected the ability of Mode 4 
service suppliers to trade their services abroad, the argument that measures relating to visa procedures 
were not covered anywhere in the GATS was not pers uasive.  However, they were not convinced that 
the WPDR was the correct forum for considering that question, and felt that it might be more 
appropriate to conduct a discussion in the context of  Mode 4 issues.  The more important question 
was not whether visa administrative procedures fell within the scope of the Agreement, but how 
Members' ability to maintain such  measures was dealt with.  Respec ting Members' ability to maintain 
or pursue other non-trade policy objectives that were directly related to the entry and temporary S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 20  
 
presence of foreign persons in a Member's territory , e.g. border security, while trying to encourage 
progressive trade liberalization was a much broader trade policy question.   
112. A similar issue that was addressed in the GATS and the other covered agreements was how to 
permit Members to maintain measures in support of other policy objectives, while at the same time 
not allowing such measures to be unnecessarily burdens ome or restrictive for trade.  The delegation 
did agree with Colombia that, when reviewing admi nistrative procedures related to temporary entry, 
Members needed to ask themselves whether it w as possible to frame less burdensome but equally 
effective regulations in order to atta in the objective that had been set.   
113. A representative of the Secretariat
 noted there were no specific  discussions in the WPPS of 
measures relating to entry and temporary stay, a nd said that the focus was the development of 
disciplines.  The Decision on Professional Services had a three-element mandate, and the part relating 
to qualification requirements, technical standard s and licensing requirements was a main focus of 
work, including developing what are now the five su b-categories of measures.  There was no specific 
discussion of Mode 4 issues, but perhaps some particip ant did have such relationships in the back of 
their minds.   
114. The delegation of the Philippines  said that Australia's arguments deserved consideration, and 
suggested that the Working Party continue discussions on 18 February. 
115. The delegation of Colombia  said they wished to respond to Australia's comments, as well as 
the intervention of the Secretariat, stating that times had probably changed since the WPPS.  They 
stated that licenses, etc. had a scope, which c ould perhaps cover the administrative procedures 
regarding entry permits.   
116. The delegation of Australia  noted they would have their immigration experts at the meeting 
on Friday.   
117. The delegation of the United States  said they shared some of Australia's concerns, and 
reiterated their previous comments as recorded in the Report on the Meeting.  The delegation had no 
difficulties, however, with further discussion.   
118. The delegation of Japan  said it was a very important issue.  They noted that the CTS Special 
Session on 22 February would be dedicated to Mode  4, and suggested that the continuation of the 
meeting of 18 February should be devoted to  discussion of the expected new papers.   
119. The delegation of Colombia  said they would raise the issue in the CTS Special Session, but 
emphasized there were still very different opinions within the Working Party regarding the issue.  
Therefore, Members needed to keep the item on the agenda.   
120. The Chairperson  noted there was a suggestion to carry over the discussion to the meeting on 
18 February, but he hoped Members could give pref erence to discussion of the expected new papers.  
If time permitted, Members could continue the ag enda item after discussion of the new papers;  
otherwise, Members could return to the item at the next formal meeting.   
121. The delegation of China  reiterated that Mode 4 issues were part of the current negotiations, in 
particular when Members examined the language  in the Annex on Mode 4 as well as the GATS 
Preamble.  The GATS did not prevent Members fro m regulating, or introduc ing new regulations on 
the supply of services in their territories, but that did not mean Members could not negotiate in the context of Article VI to set disciplines for regulator y measures.  The same logic could be applied to 
the Annex on Mode 4.  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 21 
 
 
122. The delegation of Brazil  said they agreed with Colombia, a nd wished to retain the item on the 
agenda in order to follow the Chair's suggestion. 
123. The delegation of Peru  supported the proposal made by Brazil. 
124. The delegation of the Philippines  supported the Chair's suggestion. 
125. The delegation of the European Communities  reiterated their position that they did not see 
visa procedures as falling under the scope of Ar ticle VI, and said they supported the Chair's 
suggestion to start the meeting on 18 February with the new submissions. 
126. The Chairperson  noted that the continuation of the meeting had been requested for the 
morning only, and suggested that Members see how long would be required for discussion of the 
papers before deciding whether to further extend the meeting.   
127. The delegation of the Philippines  asked whether the remaining agenda items would be 
discussed during the continuation of the meeting.  The Chairperson  suggested Members could attempt 
to complete the remaining agenda items.   
128. The delegation of the United States  agreed with the Chair's suggestion, and noted that 
informal meetings could also be held if necessary.  The Chairperson  noted that the subject of possible 
work between clusters would be taken up at th e end of the meeting under Other Business.   
129. The Chairperson  suggested that the Working Party take note of the statements made, and 
closed the agenda item by saying that Members could continue the agenda item after discussion of the new papers on 18 February if time permitted;  otherwise, Members could return to the subject at the 
next formal meeting.  It was so agreed
. 
(Continuation of the meeting on 18 February) 
U.S. Paper on Transparency  
 
130. The Chairperson  noted that the United States had circulated a new room document on 
transparency, entitled Horizontal Transparency Disciplines in Domestic Regulation:   Proposal by the 
United States .  He then asked if the U.S. delega tion wished to introduce their paper. 
131. The delegation of the United States  said their proposal built on the 2004 U.S. transparency 
paper, and reflected the broader U.S. objective of transparency throughout the negotiations, in 
particular in the area of services negotiations.  The proposal encouraged transparency across all 
services sectors and modes of supply, and they belie ved the principles presented in the disciplines 
were an important building block for continuing exis ting transparency principles in the GATS.  They 
considered the disciplines to be consistent with tr ansparency principles and disciplines that countries 
were applying pursuant to other international agre ements, as well as in their own domestic regimes.  
The delegation also believed that, by agreeing to provide regulatory transparency, all Members would 
significantly enhance their existing services commitme nts, as well as the commitments made in the 
current round of negotiations.  They hoped the tr ansparency disciplines would address many of the 
sector and mode-specific concerns raised by Me mbers concerning the importance of enhancing the 
value of commitments and the importance of greater overall transparency.  The delegation also felt the 
disciplines were fully compatible with sect or-specific disciplines or approaches.   
132. The first element of the proposal was the Es tablishment of Mechanisms to Respond to 
Inquiries from Interested Persons.  The delegation r ecognized that Article III already required the  
establishment of enquiry points, but noted it was in respect to Member-to-Member information.  The 
United States was attempting to build upon that oblig ation by extending it to "interested persons" in S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 22  
 
each Member country as well.  The second element presented was Publication, and it also built upon 
the existing publication commitments in GATS Articl e III by including interested persons.  It also 
expanded the scope of existing commitments under Ar ticle III by requiring publication of information 
about processing deadlines, rights of appeal, and notifi cation with regard to violations of the terms of 
a license.  Another very important discipline it pr esented was the requirement for advance notice and 
comment.  That was a mandatory requirement, d esigned to apply to specific commitments, but the 
delegation recognized there might be differences  in how countries wished to implement the 
requirement, and therefore proposed the standard of "to the extent practicable".  They hoped countries 
would find it a meaningful, yet sufficiently flexible , standard that could be adapted to their domestic 
regimes.  The United States was also proposing that  comments be allowed by interested persons as 
well as other Members.  The paragraph (B.2) in cluded a provision that understood there were some 
circumstances in which advanced notice and publica tion and public comment might not be required, 
such as regulations dealing with military or forei gn relations or emergency s ituations.  The delegation 
was also proposing that each Member should publish regulations in "plain language", to be readily 
understandable, to allow a reasonable period before  they became effective and, to the extent 
practicable, to address substantive public comments in writing.  
133. The United States had also included a third element, with regard to licensure, recognizing the 
concern that a number of Members had raised regard ing the importance of transparency and licensing.  
They were attempting to build upon GATS Articl e VI, by requiring the establishment of clear, 
publicly available procedures, and would apply th e requirement to all forms of licensure or 
authorization under GATS Article VI:3.  They sugg ested it would include procedures to provide a 
decision within a reasonable period of time, pr oviding the information necessary for completing 
applications, notifying applicants of the status of their applications, and informing applicants of the 
reasons for a denial, as appropriate.  The third elem ent also addressed the issue of examinations, and 
suggested that they be offered on a non-discriminator y basis and at reasonable intervals and costs.  
The final element, which was essentially for clar ity, was to propose that the disciplines be 
implemented in a manner consistent with GATS Article III, III bis, the GATS exceptions provisions 
and the Annex on Movement of Natu ral Persons.  The element also clarified that the provisions would 
not apply to travel documents or authorizations to tr avel to a Member's territory.  The U.S. intent was 
to have accommodated the proposals made by other Members in the Working Party, and the Special 
Session of the Council for Trade in Services.  Th e delegation looked forward to working with 
Members, in a common endeavour to implement the disciplines in a manner which enhanced both 
existing and future commitments in a ll sectors and modes of supply.   
134. Members thanked the U.S. delegation for their paper, and made the following preliminary 
comments: 
135. The delegation of Korea
, regarding footnote 1, asked whether the "carve-out" also included 
measures under paragraph 2(a) of th e Annex on Financial Services.  Th ey also asked whether footnote 
3 concerned the same Annex as we ll.  Regarding the implementation of prior comment, the delegation 
asked whether it would be done so only in a bilate ral context, so that the comments would not be 
available to third parties, which might therefore involve an imbalance of opportunity depending on 
each Member's capacity or resources. 
136. The delegation of Canada  emphasized that the area of regulatory transparency was important 
for Canada, as noted in a 2001 negotiating proposal, a nd that they were committed to exploring best 
practices with Members and seeing to what extent  existing GATS provisions could be enhanced.  
They believed the paper provided a good basis for further discussion.   
137. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  agreed that transparency was a very important element, 
and said that the paper illustrated how such elements  might be possible on a horizontal basis.  There 
were many elements that the delegation could pe rhaps associate themselves with, including building 
on Article III to extend transparency to the level of  service suppliers and the competent authorities.   S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 23 
 
 
Regarding Paragraph B.1, the delegation asked for cl arification on the term "regulations of general 
application", enquiring what exactly was intended to  be covered.  Similarly, they also asked for 
clarification of the term "regulations of gene ral application respecting specific commitments" in 
paragraph B.2(a.).  On paragraph B.2(b), the de legation asked for elaboration regarding "reasonable 
opportunity".  Concerning "plain language", in pa ragraph B.3(a), the delegation asked how the term 
would be defined and implemented. 
138. The delegation of Mexico  said they believed Article VI:4 disciplines were essential for 
transparency, and that transparency was not an end in  itself, but must be one element of the disciplines 
under discussion.  They hoped that the United States agreed.  On paragraph B.1, "regulations of 
general application", they wondered if the U. S. delegation considered that congressional and 
parliamentary regulations applied, as well as those regarding sub-federal jurisdictions.  Regarding 
paragraph B.3(b), Mexico was of the view it was not necessary to address comments in writing.   
139. The delegation of Switzerland  noted that the paper touched upon important issues, but also 
emphasized that transparency alone was not sufficient.   They asked if the carve-out in footnote 1 was 
necessary, taking into account existing provisions unde r GATS Article XIV bis.  On "plain language", 
they asked if it included WTO language.  Regardi ng "regulations of general application", the 
delegation asked if the U.S. understanding of the te rm was similar to that of GATS Article X, where 
there had already been jurisprudence under the DSU.    
140. The delegation of India , regarding such aspects of the paper as interested persons, publishing 
in advance, and responses in writing, while rec ognizing that some flexibility had been provided, 
raised the issue of the capacity of developing count ries.  They agreed with Mexico that it was not 
necessary to address comments in writing.  On Licensi ng in Part C, they asked if both licensing and 
qualifications were included, noting the refere nce to qualifying professional examinations in 
paragraph C.2.  The delegation also asked for cl arification on paragraph D.1, particularly in 
relationship to Mode 4. 
141. The delegation of Chile  also agreed that transparency was not an end in itself, and that it was 
complementary to other disciplines that might be de veloped.  They also had questions on "plain 
language", the coverage of footnote 1, the gap be tween publication and effective date in paragraph 
B.3(b), written comments, and federal/sub-federal c overage. The delegation also raised other issues 
such as the costs implied by the proposal, capacity need s,  and the relationship with other proposals.   
142. The delegation of Colombia  said transparency was an important area for Market Access;  
however, transparency should not be isolated, and should be complementary to other elements.  They 
asked what the relationship was between the proposal  and the other elements contained under Article 
VI:4.  The delegation also asked the relationship between paragraph B.1, i.e. the publication of 
available information to obtain or renew certificates , etc., and the last paragraph of the paper (D.1) 
with respect to the limitations applicable to natura l persons.  The delegation also asked how to move 
forward regarding implementation by devel oping countries that lacked capacity.   
143. The delegation of Japan  asked for clarification on paragraph B.1, on the definitions of  
"certificates, licenses and other qualifications," and their relationship to Artic le VI:4 terminology.  
Like India, the delegation asked for clarificati on on the coverage of Part C. on licensing, asking 
whether Part C. also covered qualifications aspects,  and why only certain aspects were highlighted.   
144. The delegation of the European Communities , like Mexico, firmly believed in transparency.  
Regarding regulations of general application, they asked the legal basis for application to all 
measures, and whether that legal basis might need to be supplemented, noting that Article VI:4 only 
referred to certain measures.  On  paragraphs B.2 and B.3, the delegation asked whether they would 
also apply to parliamentary bodies.    S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 24  
 
145. The delegation of Brazil
, on paragraph B.2, said the proposal appeared to recognize the 
sensitivities regarding prior comment by stating "to the extent practicable."  On paragraph B.3(c), they 
asked if what was envisaged involved using one of th e WTO official languages for communications.      
Regarding paragraph C.1.(c)(i), they wondered if it  might create too much administrative burden, and 
whether the principle of reasonability in application might also be required.  On paragraph C.2, the 
delegation asked if the United States could provide ex amples of excessive costs.  Regarding paragraph 
D.1, as Colombia had noted, they asked whether trav el documentation or authorizations related to the 
supply of the service would also not be covered.   
146. The delegation of Australia  said they firmly believed in transparency, because it was a key 
element enabling industry decision-making on in vestment, and underpinned the GATS and other 
WTO agreements in view of the clear recognition of  the benefits of predictability and certainty.  
Transparency in regulation was a key contribut or to that predictability and certainty.   
147. The delegation of Chinese Taipei , on paragraph B.2(b), like H ong Kong, China enquired on 
the meaning of "reasonable opportunity".  Regarding paragraphs B.3(b) and (c), they asked what 
would be the benchmarks.  On pa ragraph C.2, like Brazil, the dele gation asked what frequency for 
examinations would be required, and what woul d be the threshold for examination costs.   
148. The delegation of New Zealand  like Mexico and the EC, asked fo r further clarification on the 
scope of the term "laws and regulati ons of general application", and its consistency with Article VI:4.   
149. The delegation of Norway  noted that most of the administrative and regulatory processes 
addressed in the paper were already part of Norway 's domestic regime, and stated that transparency 
provided predictability and accountability.  They we re concerned about the administrative burden 
disciplines might possibly impose on least develope d and low-income developing countries, and said 
the issue needed to be discussed further.   
150. The delegation of China  asked for further explanation on all three footnotes.  On "plain 
language", they asked what kind of language was considered.  Regarding paragraph C.2, on the 
intervals and costs of  examinations, the delegation ask ed to what extent it related to transparency.  On 
paragraph D.1, the delegation asked for examples of implementation that would not be consistent.   
151. The delegation of South Africa  said they wished to be subject to disciplines which signalled 
to investors predictability in the application of  domestic regulation, and therefore agreed with 
Norway's comment.  They were, however, struck by the lack of recognition in the proposal of the 
differences of institutional capacity or financial r esources of different countries in implemented the 
suggested measures.  They noted that references to  "reasonable" and "to the extent practicable" would 
offer a certain flexibility, but asked what aspects of  the document would refer directly to the abilities 
of LDCs and developing countries in ge neral to adopt the disciplines.     
152. The delegation of Pakistan , regarding the establishment of mechanisms to respond to 
inquiries, suggested that the enquiry points should be  the mechanism for obtaining such information.  
Regarding paragraph B.2, the delegation asked why, as long as the measures concerned were GATS 
compatible, Members should not be allowed to proceed without requiring an opportunity for 
comment.     
153. The delegation of Nigeria  said there were useful elements in the paper which merited further 
consideration.  They were reassured that the first sen tence in the paper stated that the disciplines were 
not meant to supersede Members' existing transparency commitments under the GATS. 
154. The delegation of Malaysia , on paragraph B.2(b), said there could be a problem with 
Malaysia's domestic legislative procedures.  Like  other delegations, they also had concerns on  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 25 
 
 
paragraph B.3, and sought further explanation.  They also wished for further explanation of the 
relationship between the proposal and th e best endeavour language of the Accountancy Disciplines .   
155. The delegation of Turkey  said they supported the transparency principle, and the application 
to domestic regulation.  They were concerned that  the propositions contained in the document might 
be more burdensome than necessary for some Me mbers, including Turkey.  They supported the 
questions posed regarding language, and asked if footnote 1 might have the effect of limiting the 
scope of Article XIV bis. 
156. The delegation of the United States , in the interest of time, said they would make a general 
response, and looked forward to further detailed disc ussions at the next meeting.  The United States 
was very pleased with the broad participation a nd scope of reactions, and noted that important 
questions had been raised.  Regarding the relati onship with other papers, the delegation said the 
proposal was the U.S. contribution to the WPDR work, and they hoped it complemented and lent support.  Regarding the legal basis, the delegation believed they were "breaking some new ground" in 
also highlighting Article III, and that the legal basis was a combination of both Articles III and VI. 
The delegation did not prejudge the ultimate form th at disciplines would take, and looked forward to 
working with other Members. 
157. The use of the term "measures of general app lication" reflected the flexibility the U.S. was 
trying to build into the proposal, by respecting ex isting general requirements as well as more specific 
ones.  Therefore, Part A, which was the estab lishment of a new requirement with respect to 
"interested persons", was restricted to specific commitments.  Part B, however, on publication, 
together with Part C on licensure, was based more  on Article III, and was not restricted only to 
specific commitments.  Regarding prior notice and comment, the delegation said it clearly concerned 
regulations of general application,  and did not deal with legislation or laws, which would present a 
problem in many countries.  Regarding footnote 1 on exceptions, they said no limitation on Article 
XIV was intended, as was specified in Part D;  in stead, it was intended to provide flexibility.  On 
"plain language", it was a requirement found in domestic  U.S. legislation, and not an intention to use 
one of the GATS languages.   
158. Regarding a "reasonable period of time", the Unite d States did not prejudge the interpretation, 
and said it was open to discussion.  On addressing s ubstantive concerns in writing, the delegation 
emphasized that it was to the extent practicable, and was not an absolute requirement.  Regarding 
burdensomeness, they agreed it was a legitimate concern, and therefore had tried to build in as much 
flexibility as possible for all Members.  The de legation noted that recognition of levels of 
development was not included in GATS Articles III or VII, but they were nonetheless open to 
discussion.  Regarding the term "travel documents or authorizations" in Part D, they were not 
referring to an authorization to supply the service,  but rather the authorization to travel.  The 
delegation concluded by st ating they had presented the elements of transparency which they thought 
might be broadly applicable across sectors;  they were not prejudging what Members might want to 
do on a sector-specific basis.  They again thanked Members for the responses, and looked forward to 
working together on the proposal. 
159. The Chairperson
 stated he believed Members had a very  good initial debate.  He closed the 
discussion by suggesting that the Working Party take note of the statements made, and revert to the 
paper at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
Philippines et al. Paper on Draft Disciplines  
 160. The Chairperson
 moved to the room document from Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic, 
and the Philippines, entitled Elements for Draft Disciplines on Domestic Regulation .  The  delegation 
of the Philippines indicated they would introduce the paper.     S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 26  
 
161. The delegation of the Philippines
 said they were presenting the proposal on behalf of Brazil, 
Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru.  The pape r was intended to offer the perspective of a 
number of developing countries, in respect of the elements which could make up a possible set of regulatory disciplines as mandated under Article VI :4, and the submitting Members sought to offer 
the proposal to balance the other elements currently  on the table.  The submission was also intended 
to complement, and to be complemented by, the subm issions of Colombia;  Mexico;  and Chile, India, 
Pakistan and Thailand.  The document was a work in progress, and their intention was to build upon 
discussions and inputs from colleague s as well as on-going consulta tions in capitals.  The submitting 
Members foresaw the revision of the proposal, as a ppropriate, with a view to later submission as a 
JOB document.   
162. There were a number of elements of the proposal  which needed to be further understood and, 
as underscored in the introductory paragraph, fore most was the scope and function of regulatory 
measures to be subject to disciplines in rela tion to measures which constituted limitations and 
conditions affecting entry under Ar ticle XVI or national treatment under Article XVII.  As a corollary 
to the second sentence of paragraph 4, it was their understanding that under any disciplines on 
domestic regulation, Members should in respect of  measures relating to licensing requirement and 
procedures, qualification requirements and procedur es and technical standards, accord foreign service 
suppliers and foreign services treatment no less favour able than that they accorded their own like 
services and services suppliers except to the exte nd that such discriminatory treatment had been 
scheduled.  Paragraph 9 of the paper was specifi cally included to emphasize the point that any 
disciplines should encompass all modes of supply, incl uding in particular Mode 4.  Paragraph 10 
emphasized that Article XIV be seen as overriding all other provisions of the GATS, including the 
disciplines.  The submitting Members intended that , along with other paragraphs in Section II on 
general provisions, paragraph 10 would in due course find reflection in the disciplines to be 
developed.  
163. The sections on the five elements which followe d, on licensing requirement and procedures, 
qualification requirements and procedures and techni cal standards, would benefit from consultations 
and discussions among Members.  While the language had deliberately been left open-ended, the 
elements would obviously become more prescriptive c onsistent with the nature of the disciplines the 
submitting Members were seeking to develop.  Th ey foresaw the transparency elements as being 
further elaborated upon, perhaps with a number of the provisions which the United States had mentioned as necessary elements.  For licensing re quirements, Members should consider, as noted in 
paragraph 12(b), that the scope of licensing requi rements be limited to subjects relevant to the 
activities for which a license was sought.  Under licen sing procedures, as stated in paragraph 12(b), 
licensing procedures and the related documentation, including that for renewal, where applicable, 
should not be more burdensome than necessary to  ensure that applicants fulfilled licensing 
requirements.  Under paragraph 12(c), disciplines s hould require that a reasonable period of time for 
the entire licensing procedure be observed, includi ng for reaching an administrative decision on an 
application for a license after receiving the appli cation in question.  Under paragraph 12(e), upon 
request, the reasons for rejection of an appli cation should be made known to an unsuccessful 
applicant, and in such cases, each Member should pe rmit an applicant within reasonable limits, to re-
submit applications for licensing.   
164. Under qualification requirements, as stated in 14(b), the scope of examinations would be 
limited to subject relevant to the activities for which authorization was sought.  On qualification 
procedures, under 15(b), qualification procedures and related documentatio n would not be more 
burdensome than necessary to ensure that app licants fulfilled qualification requirements, and 
Members should not require more documents than were necessary for the purpose of such 
qualifications, and should only im pose reasonable requirements regarding the format of such 
documentation.  In paragraph 15(c), examinati ons where applicable, should be scheduled at 
reasonably frequent intervals, and made available for all eligible applicants, including foreign and 
foreign qualified applicants.  U nder paragraph 15(e), verification of  an applicant's qualifications  S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 27 
 
 
acquired in the territory of another Member should take place  within a reasonable time-frame in order 
not to prejudice the supply of a service.  When appli cants' qualifications fell s hort of requirements, the 
decision should state the additional qualifications, if any, required of the applicant to qualify for the 
supply of the relevant service or activities and in such cases each Member should permit an applicant 
to resubmit applications for qualification.  Fo r technical standards, Members would need to 
incorporate the ideas which were raised by Me xico and reflected in the paper submitted by 
Switzerland.  The submitting Members looked forw ard to elaborating further what was in the 
proposal, and the intervention had sought to give an indication of where they foresaw certain elements 
for disciplines could be headed.  The language in the proposal was open-ended,  and intended to allow 
Members to provide further thought and reflection.    
165. The Chairperson  then opened the floor for comments.  Members welcomed the paper, and 
made the following preliminary comments: 
166. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said the proposal complemented previous submissions, 
and emphasized it was important to have more contributions from developing countries.  The 
Working Party now had a number of concrete though ts on possible elements, and the delegation  was 
looking forward to more substantive discussions of those elements.  Their first observation was that 
the paper contained familiar elements, as found in  Article VI:4, other GATS provisions, and the 
Accountancy Disciplines .  Regarding the relationship between regulatory disciplines to be developed 
under Article VI:4 and existing provisions under th e GATS, specifically Articles XVI and XVII, the 
delegation noted that by and large they had the same  thinking on National Treatment.  On the right to 
regulate in paragraph 5, they asked for clarificati on on why reference was made only to sectors where 
specific commitments had been made.     
167. On paragraph 3, again regarding application to  where specific commitments had been made, 
the delegation's view was that perhaps the question should be left open.  On paragraph 5(c), they 
asked for clarification of whether it was intended to create a new general exception.  Regarding the 
reference to "within their territories" in the same paragraph, the delegation asked about the application 
to cross-border trade.  On the reference to nationa l policy objectives in paragraph 6(b), the delegation 
noted the application appeared to be wider than  Article VI:4(b) itself, and enquired whether it 
reflected any specific concerns.  On paragraph 6( c), they noted it included both qualification and 
licensing procedures, which seemed a reasonable exte nsion.  Regarding para graph 10, the delegation 
asked for clarification on use of the term "availing of the rights".  Regarding qualification requirements and procedures, they wished to exam ine the provisions in the context of other more 
detailed proposals.  Regarding S&D, the delega tion said the recognition of regulatory capacity, as 
well as of the administrative burden of any disciplines,  must be considered in developing disciplines.  
Another area meriting consideration was coopera tion between regulators, which in Hong Kong 
China's experience was a very effective way of helping to build regulatory capacity.  
168. The delegation of Egypt
 reaffirmed their position that the right of Members to regulate, and to 
introduce new regulations on the supply of servi ces within their territories as recognized by the 
GATS, should not be hampered by disciplines on domest ic regulation.  They stated that the objectives 
of Article VI:4 should be met in a manner which t ook into account the different levels of development 
of Members, as well as their institutional capacitie s.  The delegation strongly believed that S&D 
should be incorporated into the disciplines under Article VI:4, in order for such disciplines to 
effectively address the needs of developing countries,  particularly those related to the market access 
of their exports to the developed countries.   
169. The delegation of the European Communities  noted there were many contributions on the 
table.  They said Members needed to examine how to "put together all the pieces of the puzzle", and 
sought further clarification from the submitting Member s in that regard.  They enquired as to why 
paragraph 10 did not also refer to the Annex on Movement of Natural Persons, as well as asking for 
clarification on the use of the term "the necessity of " in paragraphs 12(b), 13(b), 14(b) and 15(b).    S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 28  
 
Regarding paragraph 15(d), they enquired as to how there could be concessional fees for developing 
countries, if fees were also required to be commensurate with administrative costs. 
170. The delegation of Switzerland
 noted there was now a second paper that included all the 
elements of Article VI:4, and said they were willing to also work informally to accelerated the work 
of the Working Party.     
171. The delegation of Canada  on paragraph 4, said more discussion was needed.  Canada's view 
was that the potential VI:4 disciplines should not ove rlap with existing Article XVI and Article XVII 
disciplines, and they wished to get a sense of the dr afters in that regard.  Concerning use of the term 
"shall" versus "should" in the proposal, as well as the intent of paragraph 5, the delegation asked for 
more clarification.  They had also noted the incl usion of the reference to qualification in paragraph 
6(b).   On paragraph 7, they said it would be useful  to have a sense of the relationship with S&D, as 
well as what was the particular need of developi ng countries to regulate and introduce new regulations 
as distinct from the need of other Members to do so.  On paragraph 12(b) the delegation said the 
wording was not clear.  They would also need to consider the relationship between Article XII and 
VI:4, as mentioned in the proposal. 
172. The delegation of New Zealand  said the proposal, like the U.S. paper, was a positive 
contribution, and they would revert to it later. 
173. The delegation of Japan  said the paper, together with the other contributions to the Working 
Party, was an excellent basis for future work.  Like  other speakers, they asked for clarification on the 
relationship between paragraph 9 and the Annex on Movement of Natural Persons.  Regarding  
paragraph 16(a), they asked about the reference to national policy objectives, and the relationship with 
the general principles.  On paragraph 21, they asked the meaning of the relevant international 
organizations.  On S&D, they recognized the im portance of taking into account regulatory capacity 
and different levels of developmen t, but said that it was also importance to strike a balance between 
the needs of developing countries and the overall merit of the disciplines for all Members.  The 
delegation agreed with Switzerland on the need to  speed up the work, and said they also supported 
holding informal meetings between clusters.   
174. The delegation of the United States  said the proposal was a positive contribution and a basis 
for further discussion, and noted there were a number of places in which the paper discussed 
transparency which were common in general with some of the U.S. proposals.  They questioned, however, whether a number of the provisions in the paper were adaptable to horizontal disciplines, or 
were more appropriate for sector-specific disciplin es due to differences in regulatory regimes and 
requirements with respect to individual sectors.   
175. The delegation of Mexico
 said the proposal was a major contribution to the work of the 
WPDR, and said they would continue to work in  the WPDR to contribute to fine-tuning the 
document.   
176. The delegation of Pakistan  said they identified with most of the elements of the proposal, and 
complimented the drafters for their flexibility . 
177. The delegation of Bolivia , regarding qualification requireme nts, said it was important to 
highlight the role of MRAs in enabling speedy and streamlined procedures.  They said the provisions 
in the proposal would also help to streamline qualification procedures.     
178. The delegation of Malaysia  supported the paper, and particularly associated themselves with 
paragraph 6(b) and Part X. on S&D.    S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 29 
 
 
179. The delegation of Rwanda  identified in particular with pa ragraph 3 on application, paragraph 
5 on the right to regulate, universal service, and national policy objectives, paragraph 7 on the degree 
of development and institutional cap acity, and Part X. on S&D, emphasizing that special concern be 
given to LDCs.  On S&D, the delegation asked fo r clarification on paragraph 19, with respect to 
longer time-frames for compliance, noting that if the capacity to implement obligations was low, it 
would not matter whether such services were of inter est or not.  They also asked whether services of 
interest to developing countries should refer to e xport interests, or instead to development objectives, 
and suggested stating that longer time-frames shall be  given to developing countries, in line with their 
specific commitments.   
180. The delegation of Thailand  was interested in the definitions in paragraph 11, stating they were 
neutral and objective.  They noted that paragr aph 13, when compared with the EC proposal 
(S/WPDR/W/25) had some similarities, namely pa ragraphs 13(a) on transparency of procedures, 
13(b) on potential trade restrictiveness, and 13(c).  The delegation also welcomed Part X on S&D, and 
thought that the issue was most pronounced in the area of technical standards.   
181. The delegation of Chile  joined with previous delegations, to state they were willing to work 
together with the co-sponsors to clarify and furt her develop the proposal.  They also said it was 
necessary to accelerate the pace of work in the WP DR and, therefore, supported holding informal 
meetings.  The areas they suggested for more work and analysis included paragr aphs 5 to 7, especially 
with regard to the right to regulate, which they believed deserved a further exchange of views.  The 
delegation also asked to hear more from the co -sponsors on how they viewed the application of 
regulations at different government levels, as well as on what sort of  entities would be covered by the 
principles and disciplines contained in the rules for li censing, qualifications and technical standards.   
182. The delegation of South Africa  said the paper was an important contribution, and especially 
emphasized the importance of the provisions on S&D.   
183. The delegation of China  stated that the proposal contained very useful elements, for example 
regarding the right to regulate, the application to natural persons, the need to clearly understand and 
precisely define the five terms in paragraph 11, tr ansparency for all regulatory measures, and S&D.  
They also asked how the co-sponsors viewed the issue of different levels of government.   Regarding 
technical standards, the delegation noted the propo sal referred to mandatory requirements only, and 
ask how the co-sponsors defined the term, especially  with respect to standards by non-governmental 
bodies which were accepted by governments as a pre-condition to supply services.   
184. The delegation of Australia  said they would appreciate clarifications, like other delegations, 
on paragraph 5, in particular 5(c).  They were also  interested in the response to Japan's query on the 
relationship between paragraph 9 and the A nnex on Movement of Natural Persons.   
185. The delegation of Kenya  highlighted the importance of " putting the pieces together", and 
supported the suggestions for informal meetings.     
186. The delegation of Indonesia  emphasized that the proposal was very useful, and an important 
input for further discussions.   
187. The delegation of Brazil  thanked delegations for their comments, noting there would not be 
time to respond to all the questions raised, and remi nded delegations that Pe ru was also a co-sponsor 
of the proposal.  Regarding paragraph 5, the de legation stated that in cases where no commitments 
had been made, the right to regulate was not questi oned.  Regarding the reference to "within their 
territories" in paragraph 5(c), the pa ragraph applied to all four modes of supply.  The delegation stated 
that that the right to regulate was very important to developing countries, as it was for all countries, 
and therefore was emphasized in the proposal.     S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 30  
 
188. The delegation of Colombia
 also thanked Members for their comments.  Regarding the  
disciplines and the Annex on Movement of Natural Persons, their interpretation was that the Annex 
was intended for Members to regulate the entry and temporary stay of natural persons.  From their 
understanding, the Annex did not regulate administ rative procedures for natural persons requesting a 
permit, certification or permission to  supply the service.  The delegation stated there was a  significant 
relationship between the Annex and the disciplin es and measures.  As was mentioned by the 
Philippines when introducing the proposal, the disci plines were intended to be horizontal, and to 
cover all modes of supply, and were therefore cro ss-cutting rather than being limited to Mode 4.   
189. The delegation of the Philippines , regarding paragraph 5, said the intention was that where 
specific commitments had been made, the right to regulate shall be respected by all WTO Members. 
Of course, that did not imply that the right to re gulate would not be respected in sectors where specific 
commitments had not been undertaken.  Concerning pa ragraph 6(b), when drafting the proposal they 
had received suggestions for other aspects to be c onsidered, such as universal service, and therefore 
had decided on the current wording.  Regarding pa ragraph 9, and the rela tionship to the Annex on 
Movement of Natural Persons, the delegation agreed it was true that the agreement shall not prevent 
Members from applying measures to regulate the entry of natural persons, but said it was also 
important to take note of the last part of paragraph 4 of the Annex, which stated "...provided that such 
measures are not applied in such as manner as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to an 
Members under the terms of a specific commitment".  The delegation invited other Members to further discuss what they interpreted that proviso to  mean.  Regarding use of the term "necessity" in 
paragraphs 12 to 15, the delegati on referred back to their introductory statement as to how they 
foresaw that those provisions would evolve.  On pa ragraph 4, they agreed that in principle there 
should be no overlap with Article  XVI and Article XVII disciplines.  The delegation stated there was 
much more to be discussed, and agreed with the suggestion for holding informal meetings. 
190. The Chairperson
 thanked the delegations which had pr esented the proposal and, noting that 
the discussions were preliminary, proposed that Me mbers take note of the comments made and revert 
to the paper at the next meeting.  It was so agreed .  
Examples Papers  
 
191. The Chairperson  noted that the next item on the agenda was the Examples  papers.  Those 
included the communication from Brazil, Example of Measures to be A ddressed by GATS Article VI:4 
(JOB(04)/169,  dated  19 November), the communication from Hong Kong, China, Comparison of 
Regulatory Examples with Accountancy Discipl ines and Proposals for Regulatory Disciplines  
(JOB(04)/166, dated  19 November 2004), and the Secretariat Examples  paper (JOB(02)/20/Rev.10, 
dated 31  January 2005), as well as a very preliminary draft matrix of examples prepared by the 
Secretariat at the request of the Working Party.4  In the interest of time, the Chairperson  suggested 
opening the floor for comments on all the papers.   
192. The delegation of Hong Kong, China , regarding the draft prepared by the Secretariat, asked 
what the Chairperson intended for the meeting.  The Chairperson  replied that Members could give 
comments, or come back to the item at a further meeting. 
193. The delegation of Canada  said they wished to further consider the Secretariat draft, and noted 
that an appropriate caveat for any such  matrix of examples would be needed. 
                                                      
4 The Secretariat Examples paper ( Examples of Measures to be Addressed by Disciplines under GATS 
Article VI:4 ) had been further updated, to add the examples provided by Brazil as well as to revise the summary 
of discussions, including the addition of the matrix of comments from Hong Kong, China as a separate annex 
(Annex IV).  At the previous formal meeting, delegati ons had asked the Secretariat to prepare an initial first 
page, as a draft, of an expanded version of the matrix of comments from Hong Kong, China (JOB(04)/166, dated  19 November 2004), combining all the comments made previously in other discussions.    S/WPDR/M/29 
 Page 31 
 
 
194. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  suggested taking up the matrix of examples in any 
informal discussions to be held, stating it would help Members examine the measures in the Examples 
paper as well as the negotiating proposals.  They also noted that the Secretariat Examples  already 
included the necessary caveats.   
195. The Chairperson  agreed with the need for a caveat.   He concluded by suggesting that 
Members revert to the subject of the Examples  at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
(b) Development of Disciplines for Professional Services 
 
Consultations Papers  
196. The Chairperson  then moved to the Results of Secretariat Consultations with International 
Professional Services Organizations , noting that a new compilation of the comments received had 
been circulated (as JOB(03)/126/Rev.5, dated 28  January 2005), as well as to the Synthesis  paper of 
Member's domestic consultations  (JOB/(02)/204/Rev.1, dated 21 February 2003).  He asked if 
Members wished to make comments on the two papers.   
197. The delegation of Canada , noting that the updated Secretariat paper included comments from 
the International Union of Lawyers, said that  Canada was considering application of the Accountancy 
Disciplines to other professions, at least on a multilateral basis, and was consulting domestically with 
professional services organizations.  
198. The Chairperson  concluded by proposing that Members take note of Canada's statement, and 
revert to the papers at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
B. DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
199. The Chairperson  suggested that, as was the usual practice, the next WPDR meeting be held 
during the first week of the next services  cluster in June.  It was so agreed.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
200. The Chairperson , regarding the appointment of new chairpersons, noted that, due to the 
timing of the General Council, appointments that s hould have been made at the end of the current 
services cluster would not be made until the start of th e next cluster, and that the Chairperson of the 
Council for Trade in Services would be holding consultations.   
201. Regarding next steps, the Chairperson  asked what Members wished to have occur before the 
next formal meeting in June.  A number of delega tions had spoken about the importance of starting to 
put some of the "pieces of the puzzle" together, an d had suggested holding informal meetings.  He 
opened the floor for Members to express their views. 
202. The delegation of India , noting the positive momentum and the new papers for further 
discussion, agreed with the suggestion of holding informal meetings.   
203. The delegation of Canada  said they also supported holding informal meetings, and that the 
Working Party needed to ensure that the outgoing and incoming chairpersons worked together 
closely. 
204. The delegation of Mexico  also believed there was good momentum, and said they favoured 
working in informal sessions.   S/WPDR/M/29 
Page 32  
 
205. The delegation of Japan
 associated themselves with previous  speakers in supporting informal 
sessions between the clusters. 
206. The delegation of Switzerland  concurred with previous speakers.  
207. The delegation of the European Communities  also supported informal sessions, possibly with 
capital-based participation.   
208. The delegation of the Philippines  suggested possibly holding a first informal in mid- or late 
March.   
209. The delegation of the United States  supported holding informal meetings before the next 
cluster.   
210. The delegation of Chile  also supported informal meetings, but urged they not coincide with 
the Special Session meetings for other negotiations.   
211. The Chairperson  concluded by stating that the Working Party would therefore hold an 
informal meeting before the next services cluster,  with discussions to include the new negotiating 
proposals, as well as those tabled previously, together with the Examples  papers.  He also noted that 
continued discussion of Colombia's paper (S/WPDR/W/ 29) would need to be postponed until the next 
formal meeting. 
__________