RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/41 
15 April 2005 
 (05-1563) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 3 DECEMBER 2004 
Chairman: Mr. F. Seppey (Canada)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 1.
 Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Pro ducts (G/IT/1/Rev.33)...........................................................1 
- Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification  Matter Concerning Chinese Taipei 
2.
 EMC/EMI Pilo t Project........................................................................................................2 
- Draft Guidelines for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures  
  (G/IT/W/12/Rev.1) 
3. Non-Tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) .....................................................................................................4
 
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2, 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, and G/IT/W/11) ...............................................................................5  
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium.................................................................9  
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..10 
7. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ....10  
 
Introduction 
 
 The Chairman  stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/2452 on 22 November 2004. With reference to the agenda, he asked if there were any other matters to be raised under "Other Business".  He stat ed the review of product coverage and the date of 
the next meeting of the Committee would be ta ken up under "Other Business".  The agenda was 
adopted
 with these additions. 
 1. Review of the Status of Implementation of  the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.33) 
- Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification Matter 
  Concerning Chinese Taipei 
 
1.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.33.  This 
document showed the participants and the implem entation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures 
for implementation.  Secondly, there was a sub-age nda item under this agenda item, which was a issue 
raised by the United States concerning an implementation/classification matter of Chinese Taipei.  
First, however, he asked if there were any comments on general implementation matters.             
 G/IT/M/41 
Page 2  
 
1.2 The delegate of Japan
 made a statement on an implemen tation matter concerning Thailand.   
Thailand was now imposing ta riffs on digital cameras which was co vered by the ITA as pointed out at 
the last meeting.  Japan thought that the Thai prac tise was in serious violation of ITA commitments.   
At the last meeting they raised this issue a nd requested a clear and full explanation from the 
government of Thailand.  However, they had not hear d any official response so far.  Therefore, he 
requested the Chair to convey his message to the de legation of Thailand that they should inform Japan 
of the situation at the next meeting at the latest.   1.3  The Chairman
 confirmed that the information would be conveyed to the Thai delegation.  He 
turned to the sub agenda item, the request by the US concerning the implementation classification matter, 
regarding Chinese Taipei. 
 1.4 The delegate of the United States
 reported that the United States and Chinese Taipei  had been 
engaged in discussions on the classification of thermi stor devices.  Consultations continued with Chinese 
Taipei on this issue and they had been unable to resolve their differences of opinion on the classification 
of this product.  He urged Chinese Taipei to recognise and comply with the consensus decision of the 
Harmonized System Committee of the World Custom s Organization (WCO).  He hoped that with the 
WCO ruling on this product, Chinese Taipei woul d recognise this product as ITA qualifying and 
reconsider its decision to cl assify in HS code 8536.   
 1.5 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 responded to the matter raised by  the US delegation, and stated 
they would continue to work together with the US to solve the matter and hopefully reach a satisfactory 
solution soon.  1.6 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project 
- Draft Guidelines for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures  
  (G/IT/W/12/Rev.1) 
 
2.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the Committee had been fo cussing on this one particular NTM for 
some time and at the last meeting proceeded with  the examination of the draft ‘Guidelines’ which 
were contained in document G/IT/W/12.  There we re a number of delegations who commented on the 
Guidelines at the last meeting and a number of draf ting suggestions were made .  As indicated,  those 
comments were considered in the revised draft.  Since the last meeting, he informed the Committee 
that he invited those delegations that had made co mments on the Guidelines to clarify their points so 
that the Guidelines would be re-drafted for consid eration at the meeting today.  Thus, the Committee 
had before it document G/IT/W/12/Rev.,1 whic h he believed should accommodate the comments 
made.  He thought the Committee had made great progress on this matter and hoped to capture this 
work in these proposed Guidelines.  2.2 The delegate of Canada
 thanked the Chairman and the Secret ariat for the hard work that had 
been put into this revised draft.  For his delegati on, they did not have a problem with the revisions, 
and the fact that they captured the concerns of  other delegations was good progress.  If the Committee 
could approve the Guidelines today, it would be an im portant and useful step to take.  While they did 
not have any problem with any of new elements in  the Guidelines, they had one drafting suggestion, 
which was in reference to the new footnote on page thr ee.  It was simply to clarify the intent of the 
sentence and add a few words--"listed under Sec tion I" after the phrase "conformity assessment 
procedures".  He wanted to make clear that the conformity assessment procedures which were referred 
to in this footnote were those that were listed in Section I.  This was simply a drafting suggestion and 
hoped it did not cause a problem for any other delegation.     G/IT/M/41
 Page 3 
 
 
2.3 The delegate of the United States  fully supported the compilation by the Secretariat of the 
types of conformity assessment procedures each part icipant used, which had the full support of the US 
industry on this project.  They had no problem with the drafting suggestion put forward by the delegation of Canada.   He tha nked Canada for their efforts to get this process moving which has 
finally culminated in this document.   
 
2.4 He noted two other points.  Recalling that Section III on Transparency required a response 
from participants, and he thought that a formal  communication from the Committee to participants 
notifying them of these procedures and an expected response would be helpful so that this could be 
completed.  The second comment was that EMC/EMI was a 'pilot project', and it was designed as the 
first of perhaps a number of efforts in this area.  He did not have any concre te suggestions for next 
steps, except perhaps for electrical safety.  It w as something that might follow, after having gone 
through this process and developed some expertise on  developing guidelines.  He thought it would be 
easier to take up other subject areas now that EMC/ EMI had been finished.  So, he encouraged the 
Committee to think about new areas to consider.   
 
2.5 The delegate of the Philippines
 agreed that at this point in time, it was important to contribute 
to the work on NTMs.  Non-tariff measures were an  important subject in the WTO, and her delegation 
supported the work on this matter.  The draft Guid elines were very reasonable; while they did not 
have any legal status, they still sent a strong signal to the trading community that these were the kinds 
of conformity assessment procedures that the Commi ttee would like to put in place.  If the Guidelines 
were to be adopted today by consensus, here dele gation would not block consensus, but requested to 
adopt on an ad referendum basis, to give her capital some more time to examine it. 
 2.6 The delegate of China
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for preparing the new 
document on EMC/EMI.  His delegation could endo rse this document, as well as the suggestions 
made by Canada, the US, and the Philippines. 
 2.7 The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked the Chairman for the Guidelines.  He 
thought that this was the first tangible result fro m the Committee on non-tariff measures.  He noted 
that it was a good decision to focus on EMC/EMI, first in the workshop and then finalizing the outcome in the Committee.  His delegation could go along with the Guidelines and supported them.  
He could also support the drafting suggestion made by Canada.  He thought it wa s also appropriate to 
reflect about next steps.  It was good to have  commenced these discussi ons in the NTM Work 
Programme on the subject of EMC/EMI which was le ast controversial.  He took note of the US 
suggestion, and would reflect on electrical safety as a possible next step.  It was certainly something the EC would consider. 
 
2.8 The delegate of Japan
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the revised text.  He 
thought the text was very good and Japan did not have any problems with it.  He also agreed with the 
suggestions by Canada and the US.  2.9 The delegate of Egypt
 thanked the Chairman and the Secret ariat for the efforts to produce the 
draft Guidelines.  Like other delegations, his industr y was still considering this text, so he preferred 
that if it were to be adopted today, that this would be on an ad referendum basis.  
 
2.10 The delegate of India  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the document, and his 
delegation could also go along with the Guidelines, as contained in this document.  He further pointed 
out that the system in India was one where there were not any mandatory conformity assessment 
procedures for ITA products and this process had been left to the exporters and importers.  Therefore, 
he felt that paragraph three of the Guidelines, 'tha t participants should consid er changing from type (a) 
or (b) to (c), (d), (e), or (f)', was not relevant for those participants who did not have any mandatory 
conformity assessment procedures. 
 G/IT/M/41 
Page 4  
 
2.11 The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the revised 
document, G/IT/W/12/Rev.1.  He noted that it inco rporated the comments raised by participants, and 
his delegation could adopt it.  2.12 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the efforts in 
compiling and preparing for the Guidelines.  He also  expressed appreciation to Canada for their work 
on this matter.  The drafting suggestion from Canada wa s also acceptable to hi s delegation.  Like the 
previous delegations, they could also go along with th e draft Guidelines.  He w as of the view that the 
EMC/EMI pilot project was a positive contribution to the ITA NTM Work Programme.  
2.13 The delegate of Switzerland
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the efforts that had 
been made in reaching these results.  Swit zerland could also support the Guidelines. 
 2.14 The Chairman
 stated that the Committee was getting closer to the conclusion of this pilot 
project which had been going on for quite some tim e.  He suggested that the Guidelines would be 
revised to reflect the drafting change of Canada.  Wi th this addition to the Guidelines, approval by the 
Committee was sought.  He noted that two delegations  made reference to the fact that they would 
need more time to consult with  their capitals.  So, he proposed  that the Committee adopt these 
Guidelines on an ad referendum basis, and that those delegations that were not able to confirm their 
approval today, would report back to the Secretar iat by 17 December 2004.  Furthermore, he took 
note of the useful suggestion made by the Untied States regarding the transparency element of the 
Guidelines.  This element called for participants to provide their input and he noted that part of that 
information was already available through the respon ses to the survey.  For those delegations that had 
not yet responded to the survey, it was of special  importance to respond, and for those that had 
responded and their regime or procedures had change d, it was important for the Committee to be kept 
informed of those modifications.  Thus, the Committ ee should take this suggestion into consideration. 
 
2.15 The delegate of Egypt  thanked the Chairman for the proposal, but referred to the date of 17 
December 2004, and noted it was very close, so he asked for more time.  2.16 The Chairman
 responded that this date could be exte nded to 14 January 2005.  He suggested 
the adoption of the Guidelines on an ad referendum  basis and that delegati ons would have until 14 
January 2005 to inform the Secretariat if they could not adopt the Guidelines.   
 2.17 It was so agreed
. 
 
3. Non-Tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that this had been a standi ng agenda item of the Committee for some 
time and had led to the EMC/EMI Pilot Project.  The Committee had before it the overview of 
proposals to the NTM Work Programme, in documen t G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1, and the overview of 
Survey Responses in G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2.  Work  had focussed on the EMC/EMI Pilot Project as 
a first priority.   
 
3.2 The delegate of the United States  noted that Korea had tabled a paper in the NGMA on NTBs 
for the electronics industry in document TN/MA/W/6/Add.4 dated 8 November 2004.  He commended Korea for this contribution to NAMA as this  was an important sector of interest to a 
broad range of WTO Members.  He noted that Kore a's paper had relevance for the work of the ITA 
Committee on NTMs and he welcomed Korea's vi ews on the product coverage envisioned in its 
paper, and whether it might be appropriate to look at  this paper in the ITA Committee, not as a forum 
for negotiating the NTBs but perhaps as a resource that  might help advance the NTBs identified in the 
paper.  He also welcomed the views of other par ticipants on the more general question of how the ITA 
Committee could advance the work of IT-related NT Bs notified to the NGMA.  He thought it would  G/IT/M/41
 Page 5 
 
 
be useful, for transparency, to have the ITA Co mmittee report or otherwise inform the NGMA of the 
progress of work accomplished so far in the NTM Work Programme.  3.3 The Chairman
 noted the US statement under the previous agenda item, where reference was 
made to electrical safety as a possible NTB to be addressed, and that delegations may want to keep 
this in mind. 
 3.4 The delegate of Japan
 supported the US statement.  He noted that in the NAMA context, 
NTBs were being discussed and he welcomed the Korean paper on the electronics sector.  He also concurred with the statement that better di alog was needed between the NGMA and the ITA 
Committee, especially in terms of saving resources and useful communication.  
 3.5 The delegate of the Philippines
 stated that since the Committee had almost completed the first 
exercise on NTMs, she could agree with the suggesti on of the US that it might be a good idea to 
inform the NGMA of the work done on a particular NTM issue, if only to demonstrate the complexity 
of the subject matter.  She thought it would be u seful for the NGMA to see th e Guidelines that would 
likely be adopted soon.  3.6 The delegate of Singapore
 agreed with the statement made by the United States concerning 
the proposal of Korea in the NGMA.  It had quite a lot of relevance to the ITA and they would not be 
adverse to discussions in the ITA Committee, in th e context of advancing the NTM work.  As for the 
other question raised by the US regarding NTBs , presumably ITA-related NTBs notified to the 
NGMA; they would not be adverse to considering whether the Committee could be prepared to take 
up work in this Committee, given its expertise.  It  was one viable way forward.  She welcomed the 
views of other participants on the matter.  
3.7 The delegate of China
 thought the US had made some interesting suggestions.  He noted that 
not everyone in the room had good knowledge of  the NAMA negotiations, so he would have to 
examine these suggestions further.  3.8 The delegate of India
 took note of the suggestions made by the US.  He did not have a 
problem if a participant wanted to share its submi ssion to NAMA if it was relevant to the Committee's 
work on NTMs.  However, on the issue of this Committee perhaps substituting for the NAMA work, 
it would be important to take into account the di fferences in the membership  of the two bodies and 
also take into account the relevance of the Comm ittee's work to the NAMA negotiations.  There could 
also be some sensitivities.  
3.9 The Chairman
 suggested that one possible way forward would be for the Committee, through 
the Chairman, to send a letter to the Chairman of th e NGMA and inform him, on a factual basis, of the 
work that had been done in this Committee on the NTM Work Programme.  This suggestion could be 
considered at the next meeting as some delegations wanted to reflect further.    3.10  It was so agreed
. 
 
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2, 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, and G/IT/W/11) 
4.1 The Chairman  provided an overview and update of the work in this area.  He recalled that the 
Committee had been working on document G/IT/W/6/R ev.2, which provided a number of ‘Lists’ which 
the Committee had been addressing incrementally.  From the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to 
endorse List I (A)  on an ad referendum  basis, as two delegations still needed more time.  As concerned 
List I (B),  it was set aside at the last meeting, and it was agreed to revert to it at this meeting.  He 
informed the Committee that he met with those delegations that had some concerns or who had intervened at the last meeting, in order to make progress on the issue.  While the focus of these G/IT/M/41 
Page 6  
 
consultations was with respect to List I (B), other li sts were also discussed.  Thus, he believed the work 
had advanced and a way to proceed had been found.  With respect to List V
, the Committee had a first 
substantial discussion on this list at the last meet ing on the basis of document  G/IT/W/11.  However, 
there were no conclusions on how to  proceed.  As regarded List III , he had updated the Committee at the 
last meeting concerning the developments at the WCO HS Committee, and there had been no further 
developments to report since that time.  With respect to List II  and List IV , they remained outstanding and 
thus the Committee may revert to them or make proposals on how to proceed with respect to them.  Finally, he noted that at least one delegation indicate d that certain HS Explanatory Notes may be relevant 
to these classification di scussions, and thought they should be  shared with the Committee.  The 
Secretariat has made copies of such Notes, which were available in the room. 
 
4.2 With respect to List I (A)
, he asked the two delegations concerned to report on their 
consideration of the items on List I (A).  He noted that this List was adopted on an ad referendum  basis at 
the last meeting.  Based on his informal consultati ons, he thought the Committee was very close to a 
consensus.  He asked those delegations that were still not in a position to endorse the items on List I (A) 
to take the floor. 
      4.3 The delegate of Costa Rica
 stated that his delegation was one of the participants that had 
expressed some difficulties to come to consensus on List I (A) of document G/ITW/6/Rev.2.  They 
continued with their internal consultation process to  see whether they could join this consensus or 
not.  However, at this time, there were items on th e List that they did not have problems with, which 
could be approved so as to move forward.  However, they were still consulting on  items 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 
11, and 17 of List I (A).  Costa Rica had accepted to adopt List I (A) ad referendum , so those were the 
items they still had problems with and where cons ultations continued.  He hoped to inform the 
Committee on the status of these consultations at th e next meeting, or perhaps before the next 
meeting.   
 
4.4 The Chairman  thanked Costa Rica for their interventi on and thought there was the possibility 
to move forward on the majority of items on List I (A).  He suggested, as he understood there was 
only one participant that could not endorse the full List, that the Committee endorse the following 
items of List I (A)-- 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18.   
4.5 It was so agreed
. 
 4.6 The Chairman
 returned to the remaining outstanding items of  List I (A)--1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 17; 
and proposed that these be endorsed on an ad referendum  basis and that Costa Rica would inform the 
Secretariat of its ability to confirm endorsement of th e seven items by the end of 2004.  In the meantime, 
he would remain in contact wi th the Costa Rican delegation. 
 4.7 Turning to List I (B)
, the Chairman stated that from his consultations, he understood that good 
progress had been made on that List as well, and the Committee was near a consensus.  He asked those delegations that were still not in a position to endorse the items on List I (B) to take the floor.       
4.8 The delegate of Egypt
 appreciated the efforts to narrow th e gap on these issues.  As indicated 
at the last meeting, according to the Egyptian Customs, Egypt had most or all of these headings covered in their schedule.  He indicated for #14 2, Egypt covered this d escription under HS 847989; 
for #143 it was under HS 847989; item #146 was under HS 846221; #150 was under HS 847990; item #168 was HS 847989, and #191 was under any of the lis ted classifications.  For items #194 and #198, 
they appreciated the Explanatory Notes circulated by the Secretariat today, and would consider them 
and discuss it further with their customs experts.  All these classifications were covered by the Egyptian customs and classification system as just explained.  4.9 The delegate of China
 stated that his delegation could endorse List I (B) on an ad referendum  
basis.  G/IT/M/41
 Page 7 
 
 
 4.10 The delegate of Costa Rica
 stated that they could also endorse the list ad referendum  as they 
had problems with some of the elements because th eir classifications did not correspond and were still 
having consultations.  
4.11 The Chairman
 thanked the three delegations that had ta ken the floor to explain their position.  
With respect to the intervention of Egypt, he sought clarification as he understood that for each of the 
items mentioned, Egypt appeared to cover these with  at least one of the classification options.  Thus, 
he thought Egypt could endorse the items on the List.  
4.12 The delegate of Egypt
 stated he could endorse it, but as indicated, they only covered the 
headings he had mentioned.  4.13 The Chairman
 thanked Egypt for this clarification.  In light of the interventions made, he 
suggested that the Committee endor se the items on List I (B) on an ad referendum  basis.  He noted 
there were two delegations that were not in the positi on today to join the con sensus and, as with List I 
(A), asked those two delegations to inform the Secr etariat of their ability to confirm endorsement of 
the items on List I (B) by the end of 2004.  In the meantime, he would remain in contact with those delegations.  4.14 It was so agreed
. 
 
4.15 The Chairman turned to List V .  As discussed last time, there was a document prepared for that 
meeting, in G/IT/W/11, and the Committee had its firs t discussions on how to proceed with those items.  
As could be shown by that document,  List V were the items that the customs experts could not make any 
more progress on at a technical level.  Rather, they were considered more of a policy nature, which went 
beyond their expertise.  Thus, these items were  referred to the Committee for action.   
 4.16 The delegate of the United States
 noted that these were policy issues and not customs 
classification issues.  He suggested that one way to proceed was that, when looking at G/IT/W/11, there was a question related to the policy issue, and that th ese could be extracted and then the relevant question 
could be transmitted to the appropriate persons for policy decisions.  Obviously, consultations would also 
involve custom classification experts as well, but they would be able  to take back List V to the policy 
makers, perhaps based on a letter that the Chairman could transmit containing the relevant questions by 
the time of the next meeting or before the next meetin g, so they could consult in advance.  For example, 
with respect to #122, 'apparatus for stripping or cl eaning semiconductor wafers', the key question was the 
last sentence of the first paragraph--'the interpretation of whether wet and dry processes or only dry 
processes were covered by the description would determine the possible classifications and this was what 
was asked of the Committee'.  So he thought it was im portant to contact the policy authorities in their 
governments to get the answer to that question.  4.17 The delegate of the European Communities
 agreed with the statement by the United States.  He 
noted that the customs experts needed specifi c answers from the Committee and we should do our 
utmost to come up with them.  He suggested a two-step procedure that may help move this 
complicated issue forward.  When examining List V,  there were two different types of products, items 
1 to 11 concerned semiconductor manufacturing and testing equipment.  The other remaining items, 
that was 12 to 15, were broader in nature.  Hence, he  thought it would be best to first focus on items 1 
to 11 because there were some inherent linkages.  He suggested extracting from document G/IT/W/11 
those relevant questions and focus primarily on items  1 to 11, and submit them to the Committee and 
ask all delegations to come up with their appropriate answers.  4.18  The delegate of Japan
 agreed with the suggestions of the EC and US to send questions to the 
policy makers to decide what exactly the coverage m eant.  He raised a point with respect to the EC 
suggestion.  He did not have a problem with seque ncing the discussions, to first address items 1 to 11, G/IT/M/41 
Page 8  
 
but he also wanted some assurances that the next  phase would cover items 12 to 15, because some of 
those items had a particular interest for the Committee as well.  4.19 The Chairman
 noted the useful comments made by the United States suggesting that the 
Chairman send a letter to the participants invitin g them to formally make comments or provide 
answers to the questions contained in the document G/IT/W/11.  He could attach an annex to that 
letter with a summary of the relevant questions contai ned in G/IT/W/11, so as to facilitate the work of 
delegations and allow for consultati ons.  This letter would encourage de legations to come prepared to 
the next Committee meeting ready to answer ques tions.  In order to take account of the EC 
suggestion, and in order to proceed efficiently, he suggested two stages.  At the next meeting, items 1 
to 11 would be taken up, and at the meeting th ereafter, items 12 to 15 would be addressed.   
 4.20 It was so agreed
. 
 4.21 The Chairman turned to the two remaining lists—Lists II and IV
. 
 
4.22 The delegate of the United States  stated that with respect to List II , his delegation believed that 
numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 were really  policy-related issues and perhaps be longed more logically on List V.  
With respect to item 5 on List II, he acknowledged that this involved a court case in the EC, and noted 
that if that court case had been resolved, perhaps it c ould be taken up as a normal item.  If it had not been 
resolved, perhaps it should go to List IV. 
 
4.23 With respect to List IV , he noted that the first six items i nvolved a court case in the United States 
and they were still subject to the judicial process.  So, he preferred that these remain on List IV, at least for the moment.  
4.24 The delegate of the European Communities
 made remarks with regard to List II and List IV.  For 
List II , item numbers 1 to 4 appeared to belong on List  V  because policy questio ns were involved.  A 
number of them revolved around the same issue, so perhaps they could be combined.  With regard to item 5 of List II, he stated that it did not involve a court case, but was more about discussions in the WCO 
Harmonized System Committee, which had been concluded.  However, he noted that from the record of the discussions from the classification experts, it could also be a policy question.  Recalling the meetings 
of the customs' experts, he noted that there was some confusion on the product itself and questioned 
whether this type of product actually existed.  He noted it was more a policy que stion than a classification 
question now.  4.25 With respect to List IV
, number 7, he informed the Committee that the court had concluded its 
outcome on one of the items concerned.  For this produ ct, and there was a link to item 14 on List V, they 
were considering how to classify th e kits, if the soundcard was classifiable in 8471.  They did not know 
the answer to that question yet, so he thought this c ould be clarified by the customs experts.  This did not 
mean a new meeting in Geneva for the experts, but pe rhaps by e-mail they could clarify the situation and 
find out how to classify a kit which consisted of a s ound card, plus speakers, and perhaps loudspeakers.  
He proposed that the customs experts could have a second view on this issue. 
 
4.26 The Chairman  stated, that for clarity, it would be useful  to revise document G/IT/W6 to take into 
account the items that had moved subject to these discus sions.  That would be to move items 1 to 5 of 
List II to List V, and they would be considered along with the other policy issues.  And given the fact that 
the Committee had already agreed to send List V to delegations for consideration of the policy issues, he 
proposed that the Secretariat synthesize these so that they would also be attached to the letter with 
appropriate questions.   Furthermore, these five items that had just been moved would be considered with the second set of issues (items 12-15) at a future meeting.  
 4.27 It was so agreed
. 
  G/IT/M/41
 Page 9 
 
 
 
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium 
5.1 The Chairman  recalled that the last formal meeting coincided with the IT Symposium which 
was held on 18-19 October 2004.  At that time, he  gave an overview of the Symposium from his 
perspective as facilitator, and a num ber of delegations made statemen ts about the Symposium.  Thus, 
he wanted to give the Committee an opportunity to have follow-up discussions, as it was noted that 
the Symposium might give some important impetus to the future work of the Committee.  In 
particular, he noted the comments made by a few de legations in respect of the NTM discussions and 
to development aspects.  However, there were no c oncrete suggestions for possible next steps for the 
Committee in this regard.  
     
5.2 The delegate of Japan  stated that the IT sector was one of the most dynamic sectors of the global 
economy.  Technology developments we re advancing at such a fast pace in this sector, and he believed 
that the important role of the ITA was to contribute to the development of the world economy by familiarizing IT to the world, including developing count ries, and to facilitate IT development further.  
However, as noted from the IT Symposium, the products which were the result of advanced information 
technologies were not necessarily cove red by the ITA, such as the "Multi chip IC".  He encouraged all  
participants to think how to go forward and improve the ITA so that it would not become obsolete.  
 5.3 The delegate of the United States
 thanked the Secretariat for or ganizing the Symposium on Trade 
in Information Technology Products.  Two key issues seem ed to be of great importance to participants in 
this Symposium.  First, the issue of how the agreemen t addressed new  technologies would continue to be 
very important as technolo gy continued to evolve rapidly.  With discussions in the NGMA continuing at 
the same time that these issues were being addressed in the ITA Committee, he thought that the combined 
impact of these parallel discussions could help to inform and focus the discussions in the NGMA and demonstrate the importance of sector ial initiatives that lib eralise trade for these products.  His delegation 
saw work in the NGMA and the ITA Committee as complimentary, in that they believed that sector-
specific work should be advanced in tandem.  For example, identification of IT products and agreement on where they would be classified could be done among ITA participants who had the sectorial expertise in these products, but the actual negotiations on these products would take place in the NGMA 
discussions.    
5.4 The second key issue that was worthy of furt her consideration was how information technology 
could be an important partner for development.  Information Technology Agreement-participating countries like Egypt, Korea, and Malaysia gave examples of how joining th e ITA had assisted their 
prioritisation of information technol ogy as a key sector for industrial development.  In addition to the 
benefits gained from the development of a robust info rmation technology sector, it  could be applied to a 
broad range of areas including those providing assist ance to the population as a whole such as health, 
education, environment, gender, research, rural telecommunications, new forms of collaboration between large and small companies, and work of the public se ctor.  It was important to recognize the increasing 
importance of the IT sector to the overall structure of the global economy and for dynamic technological 
change.  The United States supported further dialogue on this issue in the Committee, particularly where 
developing countries could offer further examples of how participating in the ITA had helped spur 
economic growth and industrial development.  With developing country exports of IT products growing 
at more than ten percent per year, it was more important than ever to encourage other developing countries to participate in the ITA.  5.5 The Chairman
 thought the statements today and at the last meeting were very useful in terms of 
informing the Committee and generating possible ideas for further work.  Given that the IT 
Symposium was meant to inform the Committee, he thought that these issues should not be lost and 
should be kept in mind for future work.  He made a suggestion that in order to help identify possible 
areas of future work for the Comm ittee, the Secretariat could prepare an indicative list of the issues 
raised, both in statements from the last meeting and in  statements at this meeting.  It would be an G/IT/M/41 
Page 10  
 
indicative list of possible issues for consideration and circulated in a document for the next meeting.  
This document could inform participants and help   structure the discussions for a later stage. 
 5.6 The delegate of the Philippines
 thanked the Chairman for the proposal to have the Secretariat 
prepare a compilation of issues for future work, which was welcomed.  However, she was cautious 
towards the US suggestion to take up sector-speci fic work of the NGMA.  She noted this was a 
voluntary exercise, but given the intensity of the debate concerning sectorial initiatives in the NGMA, 
she thought it best that issues be confined to th e work to this Committee because, as demonstrated 
earlier, the Committee was making good progress.  So pe rhaps it was best not to complicate this work.  
 
5.7 The Chairman  suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and that the 
Secretariat would prepare a brief indicative list of is sues that were raised in respect of this agenda 
item.  The Committee would then revert to this matter at the next meeting.   5.8 It was so agreed
. 
 
6. New Participants 
6.1 The Chairman  stated that this item was placed on the agenda in case there were any new 
schedules that would be forthcoming and for anyone to make a statement with respect to this aspect of the work of the Committee.  However, at this point in time, there were no new schedules, nor any new 
participants to consider.  Therefore, he suggested to move to the next item on the agenda, as there were no 
requests for the floor.   
 6.2 The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement. 
 
7. Other Business 
7.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be a matter 
under consultation, and he encouraged dele gations to continue their efforts.   
 7.2 Furthermore, he proposed that the Comm ittee's next regular meeting be held on 24 
February 2005, subject to further confirmation.    
__________