INF/ECOM/ 42/Rev. 2 
10 February 2020  
(20-1065) Page: 1/2 
 Original:  English  
 
  
JOINT STATEMENT ON E LECTRONIC COMMERCE  
COMMUNICATION FROM NEW ZEALAND, CANADA AND UKRAINE  
NON-PAPER  
TRANSPARENCY IN WTO NEGOTIATIONS AND  APPLICATION  
TO THE JSI E -COMMERCE NEGOTIATION  
Revision1 
The following communication, dated 10 February  2020, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of New Zealand.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  New Zealand is a strong supporter of transparency in trade negotiations and the work of the 
WTO. We would like to s ee the principle of transparency also reflected in the work of the E -Commerce 
Joint Statement Initiative . Specifically, we reque st that Members consider making our future 
consolidated negotiating text available publicly, rather than being restricted only t o WTO  Members .2 
Our assumption is that such a text will contain brackets but will not carry any Member -specific 
attributions.  (In this case this distinguishes the JSI process from a RTA  negotiation where 
party -specific attributions are the norm, which thus disclose specific negotiating positions .) 
2.  We do not propose that there be any change to the handling of specific proposals from Members, 
where Members should continue to be free to determine if text proposals are restricted or publicly 
available.  
3.  The appropriate timing for operationalising this proposal  will depend on how the remaining 
process in 2019 unfolds, but if we are in a position to move to working from a single consolidated 
text from early 2020 that co uld provide an appropriate moment to make a text public.  
4.  We are aware that there is broad stakeholder interest in the scope of this negotiation, from both 
business and civil society.  This was most recently reflected in comments across the 2019 WTO Public 
Forum.  We believe that this negotiation will benefit from stakeholders having a better understanding 
of the range of issues being considered in the process . Without such information, stakeholders will 
be left to speculate about what may be being discussed w hich could lead to incorrect assumptions 
being made and incorrect information may be circulated . Moreover, we would be able to benefit from 
their knowledge and perspectives.  
 
1 This revision is to add Ukraine  as co-sponsor to the submission.  
2 If released, the first consolidated text could be described as a compilation of all text proposals 
received from Members, with some edits made by the co -convenors under their own responsibility. This would 
be analogous t o a “Chair’s text”.   INF/ECOM/42 /Rev. 2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  5.  While not all WTO Members have subscribed to the Joint Statement , negotiations  are taking place 
within the wider WTO context, where there is a tradition of transparency in textual negotiations . In 
addition, in the context of the Doha Round negotiations, records of meetings and other 
documentation were also published, and the Secretariat  regularly briefed NGOs and media .3 For 
example, n egotiating texts in the context of the Doha Development Agenda have been regularly 
issued by Chairs, while Members have been free to comment publicly on such texts in response . 
Examples include : 
- During the negotiation of the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, the consolidated draft 
negotiating text (TN/TF/W/165) was revised 18 times over the course of the 
negotiations at appropriate intervals . The frequency reflected the pace of the process, 
with th ree iterations in 2011, two in 2012  and four in 2013 prior to conclusion.  
- In the Agriculture and NAMA negotiations the draft texts and modalities were issued by 
Chairs at various intervals – for example the TN/AG/W/4/Rev.4 for Agriculture, and 
TN/MA/W/103/ Rev.3/Add .1 for NAMA (which included both the tariff modality and draft 
NTB texts.)  
- Regarding the Multilateral Register on Wines and Spirits Geographic Indications, while 
the working text was contained in a restricted JOB document ( e.g. JOB/IP/3/ Rev.1) this 
was subsequently made publicly available in an annex to the Chair 's report in  April 2011 
(TN/IP/21) . 
6.  We acknowledge that there have been constraints placed on strictly adhering to the above 
process for the JSI process, but we believe solutions c ould be found within the existing system  
available to us . For example, the INF/ECOM document series could also be used by the Co -Conveners 
to share an unclassified consolidated text with the public . The reports from both the Co -conveners 
and the Focus Grou p Facilitators that are currently posted on the portal could equally be made 
publicly available as INF/ECOM documents (perhaps in a consolidation following each group of 
meetings) – they are already anonymized and so do not disclose or prejudice the positi ons of any 
Members and leave it open for each participating Member to determine how it engages with its 
domestic stakeholders regarding its specific positions on each issue . In this way, official documents 
can be made available to the public, including thr ough their inclusion on Members own websites.  
7.  We propose to discuss this non -paper in the October meetings of the Joint Statement, and look 
forward to receiving views of Members  
__________  
 
3 https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/gats_factfictionfalse_e.htm .