WT/TPR/ R/13 
 
22 June 2023  
(23-4295) Page: 1/3 
Trade Policy Review Body   
 
SEVENTH APPRAISAL OF THE T RADE POLICY REVIEW MECHANISM  
REPORT ON THE SECOND  DEDICATED SESSION ON IT ISSUES  AND THE  
QUESTION -AND-ANSWER  PROCESS  OF 19 JUNE 2023 
Chairperson: H.E. Mr Saqer Abdullah ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of  Saudi  Arabia ) 
1. The second  dedicated session on  "IT issues  and the question -and-answer  process " (so-called 
"Basket 1") was held on 19 June 2023. The meeting was chaired by 
Ambassador  H.E. Mr Saqer  ALMOQBEL (Kingdom of Saudi  Arabia) . 
2. The Chair  indicated  that to facilitate discussions, issues 3, 4 , and 7 of the Revised Informal 
Chair Note  had been merged into a single issue, "Q&A process".  To aid the discussion, the Secretariat 
displayed  on a screen the Chair's suggested changes to the original conclusion s, which included a 
new conclusion with text  that referred to some Members ' proposal s to reduce the number of 
questions . 
3. With respect to the IT system , one Member commented that the existing IT platform has many 
more useful functions than Members may think. V arious Members  made suggestions for 
improved/new functions that the IT system should incorporate. These include (a) the ability  to see 
questions in r eal time ; (b) the ability to see answers in real time;  (c) the ability to support another 
Member 's question ; (d) the possibility to  cross-reference  replies in a user -friendly way; (e) the 
inclusion of a hard deadline for uploading questions; ( f) the inclusion of a standard template for each 
question received by the Member under review; ( g) the ability to group  questions and answers  by 
topic;  (h) the ability of the system to address formatting issues;  (i) the possibility to filter questions ; 
and (j)  that the system should be as user -friendly as the TFA website . 
4. With respect to the issue of seeing questions in real  time, one Member pointed out that there 
is nothing preventing such a feature from being operationalized . Some Members asked how the 
IT system  could alleviate the burden created by the high number of questions received by some 
Members . The Chair indicated that suggestions for functionality improvements and the system's 
utility in reducing the burden on the Member under review could be included i n the descriptive part 
of the Chair Note. 
5. There was  a discussion on the issue of moving towards a uniform use of the IT  system, with 
proposal s on how to achieve  and/or incentivi ze this. The Chair noted that making the  IT system 
mandatory at this time  was n ot possible . Several Members stressed that moving towards the uniform 
use of the online system should be the objective.  Some Members recommended to phase in the 
adoption of the IT  system, with a transitional period involving the IT and the email options running 
in tandem until Members  are comfortable . It was noted that confidence would need to be built and 
this would necessitate extensive tr ials, training, and demonstrations  to allow Members to become 
acquainted with the system and for bugs to be identified and fixed. One Member suggested that if 
all Members use the IT  platform, developing countries should receive technical training well in 
advance of their review. One Member observed that the use of the IT  system could  have benefits 
beyond reducing the burden on the Member under review , not least  enabling  easier  public  access to 
the information generated in the review process.  
6. Members  discuss ed the Chair's proposed conclusion to suggest to Members an indicative cap 
of 75  questions per Member in each review. One Member noted that despite calls in previous 
appraisals to exercis e restraint regarding the number of questions asked , the number of questions WT/TPR/R/1 3 
 
- 2 - 
 
  received by some Members had continued to increase, making it  necessary  to further define what 
"restraint " means . Some Members presented data on what would have been the outcome of the 
indicative cap for their own TPRs had it been  adopted and encouraged other Members to do the 
same. It was noted that the indicative cap would only refer to advance questions and not follow -up 
questions and that, if a Member supported another Member's  question , that  would  not count towards 
the cap.  
7. One Member noted that while there is agreement that questions need to be rationalized, the 
starting point could be  to see if  technology options have the effect of reducing the number of 
questions organically, before having a cap. One Member suggested that Members should be 
reminded each time a TPRB meeting is convened of the need to exercise restraint on the number of 
questions asked . Another Member said there is a need to improve the quality of the questions asked . 
One Member observed that  the number of ques tions in a TPR is influenced by the number of policy 
changes during the review period, so the number of questions will vary per Member . 
8. Other issues raised by Members during the meeting included  (a) a proposal, as a complement 
to the indicative cap, to have an interactive question -and-answer  session under the Chatham House 
Rule on the Review's second meeting, focusing on areas that generate the most questions; (b ) the 
issue of  the adequacy of  timelines in the TPR process  (particularly with respect to the timelines faced 
by Members  to consider the report and  to prepare  and answer  written questions ; and (c) the 
advantages of moving to a single , uniform  timeline.  
9. The Chair closed the meeting by indicating that the next session on "IT issues and the 
question -and-answer process"  would take place on  Friday , 7 July at 3 p.m. in room  D. He noted that 
the descriptive part of the report will be introduced to Members before the third session of this first 
basket of issues.  The Chair's proposed conclusions resulting from this second dedicated session  are 
attached.  
_______________  
 
 
  WT/TPR/R/1 3 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Compare d texts of the Conclusions on Issues 3, 4 , and 7 of the TPRM's 7th Appraisal 
Informal Chair  Note (to the regrouped under the new Issue Advance Q&A process)  
Original text  Modified text  Comments  
Issue 3    
1. Members agreed to maintain the 
current optional nature of the CT and 
AT while encouraging the use of the 
AT and restraint in the submission of 
advance written questions.  1. Members agreed to maintain the 
current optional nature of the CT and 
AT while encouraging the use of the 
AT and restraint in the submission of 
advance written questions.   
Issue 4    
2. Members agreed to establish a Task 
Force to strengthen the IT system for 
the submission of written Q&A with a 
view to make it more user -friendly.  2. Members agreed to establish a Task 
Force to  strengthen the IT system for 
the submission of written Q&A with a 
view to make it more user -friendly 
[and reduce the burden on the 
Member under review] . 2. Members agreed to 
establish a Task Force to 
strengthen the IT system for 
the submission of written 
Q&A with a view to [making] 
it more user -friendly [ and 
reducing the burden on the 
Member under review,] [by 
enabling as soon as is 
practicable, a uniform use by 
all Members of the IT 
system] . 
3. No text (new conclusion)  3. Members agreed to exercise 
restraint in posing advance written 
queries and, to the extent possible, 
limit the number of questions and 
sub-questions to a maximum of 75 per 
delegation.  3. Members agreed to 
exercise restraint in posing 
advance written queries and 
[suggest an indicative limi t 
to] the number of questions 
and sub -questions to a 
maximum of 75 per 
delegation.  
Issue 7    
4. Members agreed to request the 
TPRB Chairperson to remind reviewed 
Members with outstanding and 
follow -up answers that a TPR is 
successfully concluded only if 
Members have received those 
answers.  4. Members agreed to request the 
TPRB Chairperson to remind reviewed 
Members [that a TPR is suc cessfully 
concluded only when answers to 
outstanding and follow -up questions 
are submitted] .  
 
 
__________