./. RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/DS/M/28 
28 October 2005 
 (05-5018) 
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body 
22 September 2005  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 22 September 2005  
 
Chairman:  Mr. David Spencer (Australia) 
 
  The Chairman
 welcomed delegations to the thirty-f irst meeting of the Special Session and 
said that the airgram for the meeting had been circ ulated in WTO/AIR/2650 and that the draft agenda 
(TN/DS/W/80) contained two items, namely:  (i) discussion of contributions by delegations and 
(ii) "Other Business".  With respect to the first ag enda item, he said that a new informal contribution 
on remand authority for the Appellate Body had been  received from Korea.  This document had been 
circulated as Job(05)/182.  With regard to "Oth er Business", he said that he would be making an 
announcement about the date and agenda of the next meeting of the Special Session.  He asked 
whether any delegation would like to raise anything  under this agenda item.  There was no response 
from the floor and the agenda of the meeting was adopted.   
1. Discussion of proposals from delegations 
1. Before giving the floor to Korea, the Chairman  informed delegations that he had met over the 
last couple of days with a number of delegations , both individually and in groups with a view to 
making progress in the negotiations.  He recalled th at in his statement to the Trade Negotiations 
Committee the week before, he had assured that the Special Session would intensify its work in the 
coming weeks and present Ministers with a snapshot of progress in the negotiations.  The DDA negotiations were entering a new phase, as prepar ations for the Hong Ministerial Conference had 
begun in earnest.  There was the sense among the dele gations that work should be intensified across 
all fronts, so that the negotiations could be complete d by the end of next year.  The main objective of 
the recent consultations was to explore whether common ground could be fo und in the positions of 
delegations on the issues under negotiation, includin g sequencing, post-retaliati on, third party rights, 
remand, transparency, panel composition and time savings.   
2. He said that the consultations had been very useful, but he could not say that positions had 
started to converge, nor could he say that solutions have been found in any of the areas.  However, 
they had helped delegations to ga in a better understanding of each ot her's positions and expectations.  
There had been good signs of constructive engageme nt, but it was imperative for delegations to 
intensify their efforts in the next few months if substantial progress was to be reported at the Hong 
Kong Ministerial Conference.  He encouraged dele gations to continue consulting each other with a 
view to narrowing down differences and paving the way for consensus to be achieved on some issues.  
He recalled that the Group of Six (Argentina, Br azil, Canada, India, New Zealand and Norway) had 
tabled a proposal on remand which had led to a lively discussion of the issue.  He then invited Korea 
to introduce its proposal which advocated a slightly different approach from that of the Group of Six. 
 TN/DS/M/28 
Page 2  
 
 3. The representative of Korea
 thanked the Chairman for giving his delegation the opportunity to 
present informally their proposal on remand authority  for the Appellate Body.  After the introduction 
of the proposal, there was an informal excha nge of views among Korea and other delegations. 
4. The representative of the United States  thanked Korea for its proposal which had highlighted 
that the issue of remand was more complex than it might perhaps at first appear, particularly as it 
affected implementation.  The proposal also showed yet another way in which an interim report at the 
Appellate Body stage could be useful.  He reca lled that the United States and Chile had already 
proposed that there should be an interim report at th e Appellate Body stage.  He said that the United 
States had posed a number of questions to Korea a nd looked forward to further discussions with it. 
5. The Chairman  thanked Korea for its contribution and asked whether any delegation which 
had participated in any of the informal processes would like to report on the outcome of their 
meetings.  He further asked whether any delegation intended to submit in the near future a proposal 
for the consideration of the Special Session.   
6. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was finalising an elaboration 
of its proposal on further guidance to WTO adjudica tive bodies, which it had presented in the form of 
questions thus far.  He said that the proposal shoul d be ready by the time of the next meeting of the 
Special Session.     
7. The representative of Canada  recalled that his delegation had tabled a proposal on procedures 
to protect business confidential information in 20 03 and had received very useful comments on the 
proposal from delegations.  In light  of the positive feedback, Canada  was in the process of redrafting 
its proposal, which it hoped to submit by the time of the next meeting of the Special Session.   
8. The Chairman  urged delegations which intended to submit contributions do so as soon as 
possible, so as to allow enough time for their consideration by the Special Session.  Time was short and it was imperative to have an idea as to which elem ents should be included in the report to the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. 
2. "Other Business" 
9. The Chairman
 said that the next meeting of the Special Session was scheduled to take place 
on 24 and 25 October 2005.  He said that given the ov erall developments in the negotiations, it might 
be necessary to schedule other meetings on short notice.   In terms of the agenda for the next meeting, 
he said that there could be a discussion of new contributions from delegations.  He recalled in that regard that Canada and the United States had alr eady indicated that they would soon be submitting 
proposals for the consideration by th e Special Session.  He further stat ed that it was his intention to 
have a discussion on Category II Special and Diffe rential Treatment (S&D) proposals referred to the 
Special Session for its consideration by the Gene ral Council in May 2003.  These proposals had been 
discussed in the past, but it was necessary to revi sit them and explore the possibility of building a 
consensus around them.  It would be extremely usef ul if the proponents could take a lead in the 
discussions by introducing their proposals a nd explaining their underlying reasons.   
 
__________