RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/28 
25 January 2005 
 (05-0303) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
 
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 22 NOVEMBER 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (W PDR) held its twenty-eighth meeting on 
22 November under the chairpersonship of Mr. Davi d Cairns of the United Kingdom.  The agenda for 
the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2442.   Before adopting the agenda, the Chairperson 
observed that the delegations of Hong Kong, China and Brazil had newly circulated papers, which he 
proposed that the Working Party examine under the re levant agenda items.  He also noted that the 
informal U.S. paper on transparency was not con tinued on the agenda, at the request of the U.S. 
delegation.  Members agreed to adopt the agenda, as amended.  
2. Before moving to the first agenda item, the Chairperson
 reminded delegations of the 
importance of providing copies of any prepared interventions to the interpreters.   
A. ADOPTION  OF THE  ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  FOR  TRADE  IN SERVICES 
3. The Chairperson  observed that the first item on the agenda was the adoption of the annual 
report to the Council for Trade in Services.  The dr aft annual report had been circulated, as document 
S/WPDR/W/31 dated 11  November 2004.  He noted that, due to an editing error, the U.S. informal 
paper was mentioned only in a footnote and had not b een included within the text, and suggested that 
a sentence be added to paragraph 7 of the report.  He then opened the floor for Members' comments.  
4. The delegation of Canada  said they supported the adoption of the annual report, and 
suggested that the names of the incoming a nd outgoing chairpersons be added.    
5. The delegation of the United States  thanked the Chairperson for alerting Members to the 
suggested addition to the report.   
6. The Chairperson  proposed that the Working Party adopt the annual report as amended.  It was 
so agreed . 
B. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS  ARTICLE VI:4 
(a) Discussion of Concepts  Relating to the Development of Disciplines  
 
Mexico Paper on Technical Standards  
 
7. The Chairperson  observed that, at the previous meeti ng on 24 September, the delegation of 
Mexico had presented a paper on technical standards, entitled Mexico's Experience of Disciplines on 
Technical Standards and Regulations in Services,  circulated as S/WPDR/W/30,  dated 24 September 
                                                      
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. S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 2  
 
2004.  As recorded in the Report on the meeting,  Members had made many preliminary comments, 
followed by responses from Mexico.  He then opened the floor for further discussion.   
8. The delegation of Japan
, regarding paragraph 15(a) on the definition of a technical standard, 
said it would be useful to refer to Secretaria t document S/WPPS/W/9 (dated 11 September 1996) 
concerning the relationship between the TBT Ag reement and GATS Article VI:4.  Regarding 
paragraph 15(d), on special and differential treat ment (S&D), the delegation noted there was no 
explicit mandate in Article VI:4, and said they were  hesitant to discuss the issue at the moment.   
9. The delegation of Hong Kong, China , regarding a definition of technical standards, noted that 
a distinction was drawn in the paper between technical  standards and technical regulations.  As stated 
in paragraph 82 of the Report on the previous mee ting, technical standards were voluntary, while 
technical regulations were mandatory.  The delegati on asked if technical regulations simply enforced 
technical standards.  If technical standards we re voluntary, and therefore did not represent any 
regulatory measures, they wondered what aspects coul d be subject to Article VI:4 disciplines.  The 
delegation highlighted that Article VI:4 concerned measures related to technical standards, rather than 
merely the technical standards themselves.  Fo r many Members, the development of technical 
standards did not make a distinction between goods  and services, and therefore the TBT Agreement 
might be useful for the development of Article VI :4 disciplines.  Regarding paragraph 15(d) on S&D, 
the WPDR could look at TBT work to see if there was a need for such elem ents for services.  The 
delegation also underscored the importance of th e principles of non-discrimination and rationality 
mentioned in paragraph 11, and not ed that rationality was probably linked to elements of paragraph 
15, including "unnecessary barriers to trade" and "not more burdensome than necessary".  The 
delegation observed that such elements figured in  FTAs signed by Mexico, and that the U.S. paper 
also referred to transparency as a common element in many FTAs.  They wondered if it would be useful to have the Secretariat give an overview of regulatory elements in the FTAs notified to the 
WTO.   
10. The delegation of the United States
 said they were particularly interested in paragraph 11 of 
Mexico's paper, emphasizing that such princi ples as representativeness, transparency and non-
discrimination were conducive to economic grow th and benefited both foreign and domestic 
suppliers.  They asked if Mexico could make a fo rmal presentation on its legal framework pertaining 
to the creation of regulations and standards for services.  With respect to having the Secretariat 
examine FTAs, the delegation needed  feedback from capital.     
11. The delegation of Thailand  shared Mexico's view that the issues in paragraph 15 merited 
further discussion.  They believed the definition of technical standards had two facets.  One was the 
definition of substance, i.e. the minimum expect ed level of quality a services supplier should meet, 
which varied between sectors.  The second facet was th e definition of regulations related to standards, 
such as a code of conduct for professional services.   On sub-paragraph (e), Mexico had rightly 
observed there were few international standards for services.  The definition of quality needed to be 
adjusted for local conditions, which consequently made it sometimes difficult to develop a universal 
standard.  They agreed that necessity was also a very important theme, in order to balance out the 
potential rigidity of standards that could deny  effective market access, and believed that the 
Secretariat Note on necessity (S/WPDR/W/27, date d 2 December 2003) provided a good basis for 
further discussion.   
12. The delegation of Canada  said it would be interesting to know Mexico's experience in 
developing technical standards in services, as well as the experience of domestic and foreign services 
providers in meeting such standards.  Given that Ar ticle VI:4 applied to technical standards, they said 
it might be beyond the WPDR's scope to develop di sciplines on technical regulations.  The delegation 
said that the elements listed in paragraph 15 coul d be found in other WTO agreements, such as the 
TBT and SPS agreements.  It was not clear whethe r common definitions might be appropriate, but 
they said Members might wish to considering looking  at other agreements to aid understanding.    S/WPDR/M/28 
 Page 3 
 
 
13. The delegation of Switzerland  noted that the number of services standards would increase 
with time, and said it would be good to avoid mist akes sometimes made in the goods area.  The main 
merit of the paper was to help regulators draft better standards.  Regulators tended to follow the "easy 
route", and sometimes invoked market access restric tions when technical standards would be more 
appropriate to ensure quality.  They noted that pr ocedures in paragraph 11 seemed to conform with 
ISO standards, which were a good reference.  Re garding paragraph 15, regulations on impact 
assessment could help ensure that standards we re not more burdensome than necessary.  On sub-
paragraph 15(d), the delegation be lieved there were some limits on applying S&D, noting that a 
similar case regarding the SPS Agreement was be ing discussed in the Special Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development.   
14. The delegation of Argentina  said the paper helped focus attention on an issue that had not 
previously been dealt with in depth.  They also wished to have more examples of technical standards 
in services, and enquired whether conformity assessme nt for technical standards was included in the 
mandate of Article VI:4.   
15. The delegation of Brazil  said the paper was very valuable, especially in regard to the 
development of horizontal disciplines, because it presented Mexico's experience as well as offering 
suggestions.  They enquired whether Mexico had e xperience with regard to equivalence agreements 
for technical standards, and asked if the 5-year re view of technical standards and regulations was a 
difficult task.  Regarding Part IV of the paper, th e delegation said that Mexico could help the Working 
Party by giving advice on whether some elements  were covered by othe r GATS Articles or other 
WTO agreements.  On paragraph 15(d), they said that  S&D must permeate all aspects of Article VI:4, 
and not only disciplines on technical standards. 
16. The delegation of the Philippines  agreed that the paper filled important lacunae.  They asked 
for further clarification on the legal distinction in  Mexico between technical standards and technical 
regulations, noting that such clarification might help  the Working Party respond to the question raised 
by Canada.  They also asked for further clarifica tion on the notion of the "voluntariness" of technical 
standards, and questioned to what extent Article VI:4 disciplines would cover voluntary standards.  
Regarding paragraphs 15(b) and (c ), and the linkage to rationality, the delegation said that necessity 
was an important element in the development of any disciplines under Article VI:4.  On FTAs, they 
agreed it would be useful for the Secretariat to re view or make a compilation of regulatory disciplines 
in FTAs notified to the WTO, noting that an examination of FTA provisions had been made in the Working Party on GATS Rules.  Regarding S&D, th e delegation did not agree that the issue was 
outside the scope of Working Party discussions, noting that discussions were being held in the context 
of other WTO agreements, as well as the recognition in  the GATS preamble to the particular needs of 
developing countries in respect to regulation.   
17. The delegation of China
 stated that Mexico's paper contai ned some interesting elements, such 
as the question of the definition of technical standards, S&D and the definition and use of 
international standards.  They agreed with paragra ph 15(e) that there were relatively few international 
standards in services and, like other delegations, would appreciate if Mexico could provide some 
examples on technical standards in services.   
18. The delegation of the United States  asked Hong Kong, China for clarification of their 
comments regarding rationality.     
19. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  stated that they had highlighted two elements in 
paragraph 11 of Mexico's paper, i.e. non-discrimination and rationality.   Paragraph 15(e) of Mexico's 
paper on rationality stated, "technical regulations must not restrict trade more than is necessary for the 
attainment of a legitimate objective, taking into acc ount the risks inherent in failure to attain it".  
Rationality was an important principle, as indicated by Mexico, and there was a clear linkage with paragraphs 15(b) and (c).  The de legation believed that the elements of 15(b) and (c) were important S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 4  
 
to ensure that technical regulations must not restri ct trade more than was necessary for the attainment 
of a legitimate objective.    
20. The delegation of the United States
 thanked Hong Kong, China for their clarification, and 
said they disagreed with the assumption that Mexi co was suggesting that the Working Party examine 
the issue of rationality.  In the context of discussi ons on paragraphs 15(b) and (c), delegations perhaps 
could share information on their own procedures with respect to rationality, and they looked forward 
to hearing Mexico's view.   
21. The delegation of Singapore  said that  technical standards we re a difficult issue because of the 
general lack of services standards.  They suggested it  would be useful if the Secretariat could share its 
recollection of the technical standards discu ssion in the context of the creation of the Accountancy 
Disciplines .   
22. The delegation of Mexico  thanked delegations for their qu estions and comments, and noted 
that, when preparing the paper, Mexico had felt ther e was not sufficient discussion of the subject in 
the WPDR.  The philosophy behind their document was that there already was much experience 
within the WTO regarding how to regulate technical  standards and technical regulations.  The paper 
recalled that many regulatory authorities work ed on services standards, and were setting up 
disciplines.  Many of the elements identified in Me xico's paper were perhaps already adopted at the 
national level.  Regarding the questions raised  by Hong Kong, China and the Philippines, the 
delegation noted that TBT and ISO rules distinguis hed between standards and regulations.  Technical 
regulations were typically prepared by regulatory au thorities and were obligatory, and were related to 
achieving legitimate objectives.  Technical standards were normally related to qualitative aspects, and 
also recognized in international agreements, including  the TBT.  They were typically of a voluntary 
nature, i.e. the government did not oblige that they be adopted.  Standards, however, could also become unnecessary barriers to international trade,  and therefore the TBT had a Code of Good 
Conduct for standardizing bodies.  Different bodies we re usually responsible for preparing technical 
standards and technical regulations, with technical  standards typically issued by private sector 
organizations.   
23. Regarding the question on examples, Mexico coul d make a more detailed presentation for the 
next meeting.  On the question of whether Ar ticle VI:4 disciplines should include technical 
regulations, they had noted in the paper, in sub-pa ragraph 15(a), that they believed the Working Party 
should discuss the definition of a technical standard .  Mexico believed that disciplines must concern 
both technical standards and technical regulations.  Regarding the link betw een sub-paragraph 11(e) 
and sub-paragraphs 15(b)&(c), Mexico agreed w ith Switzerland and believed they complied with 
rationality through RIAs.  On Argentina's question,  on conformity assessment, the delegation was of 
the opinion that the Article VI:4 mandate would in clude it, noting that "measures relating to" would 
include procedures.  On sub-paragraph 11(f), Mexi co did have MRAs which included the possibility 
of recognition of the equivalence of technical norms and standards.  Regarding the 5-year review, they 
noted it was indeed burdensome and, in the 2002 review, 400 regulations a nd about 5,000 standards 
were reviewed.  They could share the review proce dures if Members were interested.  On rationality, 
from Mexico's view it was not a Working Party func tion.  However, Article VI:4 expressly included a 
reference to technical standards not being unne cessary barriers to trade, and not being more 
burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.  Discussions within the Working Party 
could include how to comply with those objectives.  Mexico was open to continued discussion, and 
hoped to make a presentation at the next meeting.   
24. The Chairperson
 thanked Mexico for their thorough responses, and the offer to make a 
presentation on examples at the next meeting.  Re garding the background on discussions of technical 
standards, he asked the Secretariat to comment.    S/WPDR/M/28 
 Page 5 
 
 
25. A member of the Secretariat  referred to three elements concerning technical standards.  First, 
regarding the origin, there were references in th e GATS to technical standards and international 
standards, particularly in Articles VI and VII.  The same trade policy perspective for the TBT and the 
Import Licensing Agreements guided the thinking on the GATS, i.e. ensuring that regulatory requirements did not become more trade restrictive th an necessary.  There was also the element of the 
perceived objectivity of international standard s, as found in the rebuttable presumption in GATS 
Article VI:5(b) that when a Memb er applied internationally recognized standards, the Member was 
presumed to have applied the least trade restrictive measure.  There was no mandatory requirement to use international standards, but Article VI:5(b ) did provide a benchmark for determining the 
objectivity of regulatory requirements.  There also was no GATS definition of technical standards;  it 
was left to Members to determine in the context of the work under Article VI.4.  The treatment of 
technical standards proved quite difficult in the creation of the Accountancy Disciplines  (S/L/64), and 
Members could agree only on two paragraphs.  The main difficulty was that, although much international effort had been made to create inte rnational standards for acc ountancy, sensitivity to any 
perceived threat to regulatory sovereignty w as still an important element.  Notably, the Accountancy 
Disciplines  did apply a necessity test to technical standards.  WTO document S/WPPS/W/6 also 
provided background information on the TBT and Import Licensing Agreements which might be 
relevant to the discussions.   
26. The Chairperson
 noted that, regarding the proposal that  the Secretariat examine the regulatory 
elements of FTAs, at least one delegation wished to consult with capital.  Members therefore could 
return to the proposal at the next meeting.  He c oncluded by suggesting that delegations take note of 
the statements made, and revert to the paper at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
Colombia Paper on Visa Procedures  
 
27.  The Chairperson  turned to Colombia's paper, entitled Examples of Measures Relating to 
Administrative Procedures for Obtaining Visas or Entry Permits , circulated as S/WPDR/W/29 dated 
7 July 2004.  He recalled that Members had made further comments at the previous WPDR meeting, 
followed by responses from Colombia.  He then  opened the floor for further discussion. 
28. The delegation of China  had conducted some domestic surveys, and noted that their private 
sector, as well as many foreign investors in China,  had expressed serious concerns regarding the 
barriers identified in Colombia's paper.  Ex amples included unnecessarily long visa application 
procedures, and the granting of periods  of stay shorter than the time period of the contracts concerned.  
Chinese contractual services suppliers, with valid contracts in sectors where GATS commitments had 
been made by trading partners, had been denied an entry visa without a valid reason, which China 
believed was likely to violate the provisions of the Annex on the Movement of Natural Persons.  In 
2003, approvals for all types of visas were down by 37 per cent for one important trading partner, 
consequently negatively affecting China's exports un der mode 4.  China respected Members' right to 
regulate.  Members, however, were not free to do  whatever they liked regarding the entry and 
temporary stay of natural persons.  The extent of  freedom ended when measures were applied in a 
manner so as to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to a Member under the terms of a specific 
commitment.  China understood such measures to  include visa criteria and procedures.   
29. The delegation of Indonesia  was of the view that administrative procedures for obtaining 
visas affected trade in services, particularly the movement of natural persons, which was of great 
interest to developing countries.  Burdensome ad ministrative procedures connected to obtaining visas 
or entry permits were one of the main obstacles to trade, and affected the ability of services providers 
to deliver their services.  Colombia's paper provi ded transparency on methods for obtaining visas, and 
described some of the obstacles encountered, and could encourage debate on the basis of GATS 
provisions.  Indonesia followed with interest th e discussion stimulated by Colombia's paper. S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 6  
 
30. The delegation of Japan
 reiterated they were not sure if immigration procedures could be 
considered as qualifications or licensing under Ar ticle VI:4, and believed it was appropriate to 
distinguish between measures before and after entry.   Requirements for a qualification or license after 
entry would fall under Article VI:4.  The delegation believed it was difficult to consider immigration 
measures as falling under the scope of Article VI:4 per se .     
31. The delegation of Australia  recognized the concerns behind Colombia's paper and, as they 
had stated at the previous meeting, were continua lly working to improve their visa regimes, including 
electronic visas.  They would be making a presentation in the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services on their administrative procedures for long-term temporary entry.  The delegation also 
reiterated that Australia was not convinced that vi sa administrative procedures fell under Article VI:4.  
They were still considering the issues involved, and wish ed to revert to the paper at the next meeting. 
32. The delegation of Peru
 said that Colombia's paper very clearly stated the questions to be 
posed regarding the application of administrative pr ocedures in issuing visas.  The impact of such 
procedures on market access was of particular interest to Peru.  They agreed that regulations must not be administered in a way which undermined the specif ic commitments that had been negotiated.  Peru 
believed that visa administrative procedures were covered under Article VI:4, and therefore also 
wished to keep the to pic on the agenda.   
33. The delegation of the Philippines
 noted they had previously made their views known 
regarding the applicability of Article VI:4 disciplin es in relation to visa applications and formalities 
for obtaining visas or entry permits.  From their perspective, Colombia's paper specifically applied to procedures related to obtaining visas or work permits as they related to employment under the GATS.  
The complication, however, was that often no di stinction was made between visas obtained on a 
generic basis, and those obtained for employment , including under mode 4.  Regarding Japan's 
comments, in a situation where certain qualifi cation requirements or evidence of qualification 
requirements were required at the moment of applic ation for a work visa or a work permit, i.e. pre-
entry, the delegation asked whether that would not constitute the situation of a qualification 
requirement under the ambit of Article VI:4 disciplines.   
34. The delegation of New Zealand
 noted they, like other delegati ons, were still working through 
the complex issues raise by the paper, and so wished to have the opportunity to revert to the paper at 
the next meeting. 
35. The delegation of the United States  reiterated they were open to an exchange of views on how 
best to explore perceived difficulties related to the movement of services providers, to the extent they 
fell within the scope of GATS.  Like Australia, they were not convinced that visa administrative 
procedures fell under the ambit of Article VI:4.  Th e delegation commented that visa and entry permit 
procedures were neither licenses nor mutual recognition procedures, and therefore did not fall under Articles VI:4, VI:5 or VI:6.  Nevertheless, it was im portant to have further discussions.  They wished 
to further examine the example given by the Philippines, and to return to it at a later stage.     
36. The delegation of Argentina
 said Colombia's paper was important, and dealt with aspects not 
previously taken into account.  On a preliminary ba sis, certain factors seemed to indicate there could 
be a relationship between visa administrative pr ocedures and disciplines under Article VI:4.  The 
confusion which seemed to prevail was a clear indi cation that the Working Party needed to work 
further on the issue, to clarify whether visa administrative procedures did constitute measures 
affecting trade in services.  They noted that vi sa administrative procedures could also affect 
commitments on modes of supply other than th e movement of natural persons.      
37. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  noted they had earlier made some preliminary 
comments.  They highlighted that it was very important for the Working Party to remain open-minded to the question of how to address the problems raised by Colombia, because they were actual  S/WPDR/M/28 
 Page 7 
 
 
problems faced by services suppliers that appeared to be shared by many other delegations.  In regard 
to Japan's intervention, they ask ed for clarification regarding a situation where a work visa was 
required as a pre-condition for licensing.  On China's examples, i.e. regarding the denial of an entry 
visa, the delegation wondered to what extent they would already be subject to the nullification and 
impairment provisions under Article VI:5.   
38. The delegation of India  had also previously made their views known regarding the 
applicability of work permits to Article VI:4 di sciplines.  On work permits, and distinguishing 
between pre- and post-entry, they noted there were a multiplicity of possible administrative procedures, e.g. sequential or parallel procedures.  If a supplier was denied an entry permit, they did 
not even arrive at the stage of the evaluation of qualifications.  The delegation agreed there were no 
clear answers, but emphasised that the problem was identified as a key issue which illustrated that an 
administrative framework separate from immigration was needed.   
39. The delegation of Brazil
 said they believed Article VI:4 covered the issues raised in 
Colombia's paper, both in spirit and in letter.  Among the issues to be further discussed were the 
problem of linking visas and qualifications, as well as the problem of circularity where sometimes a 
visa was required for a contract and vice-versa.   Like Hong Kong, China, they believed such 
nullification and impairment could fall under the scope of Article VI:5.   
40. The delegation of Switzerland  said they welcomed the questions in paragraph 18 of the paper.  
As preliminary comments, they said was relatively clear that a priori  visa procedures fell within the 
general scope of the GATS.  The Annex was relativel y clear, i.e. visa procedures were not within the 
scope of Articles II, XVI, or XVIII.  Their view w as that only the prohibition against nullification and 
impairment applied in the Annex.  Regarding Article VI, the delegation stated that the discussion must 
be very nuanced.  They believed that a visa was something other than licenses, qualifications or 
technical standards, and therefore did not fall within  the scope of Article IV:4.  There was, however, 
scope for a case-by-case basis, i.e. if a formal linka ge was made.  They noted that for mode 2, exit 
visas also existed.  It was an important discussion,  and Switzerland was looking forward to continuing 
the process.    
41. The delegation of Japan  thanked delegations for the comments on Japan's intervention.  They 
agreed it was often difficult to distinguish between  pre- and post-entry, considering the different 
regimes among Members.  Nonetheless, they foun d it difficult to consider immigration measures 
themselves as qualification or licensing measures, even in cases where they were linked to VI:4 measures.   
42. The delegation of the European Communities
 shared concerns expressed by Colombia, but 
believed it was in the interest of all Members to main tain the integrity of their visa procedures.  They 
believed that visa procedures were, in principle, excl uded under paragraph 4 of the Annex;  however, 
where there was an impact on commitments, there was a need to ensure that nullification or 
impairment did not occur.  Regarding China's co mments, they wondered whether the decrease might 
be related to a drop in applications, or whether app licants had not meet visa requirements.  In the EC's 
view, the issues for the Working Party concerned di sciplines on qualifications, licensing and technical 
standards.  While qualification requirements, etc. could perhaps impinge on visa requirements, the EC 
did not believe that visa procedures per se  were within the remit of the WPDR.  It was important to 
return to the main focus of th e Working Party, noting that visa issues perhaps could be looked at 
elsewhere in the WTO to the extent which they fell under the GATS.   
43. The delegation of Chinese Taipei  noted that Article VI:4 measures traditionally related to the 
need to ensure the quality of services in a particul ar sector.  The assumption was that the supplier was 
already in the territory of the Member concerned,  and that application of the measures was purely 
domestic.  Visa procedures did not have that charact eristic;  however, they could have a major impact 
on the supply of services.  Arguably, visa procedures were a prerequisite to certain VI:4 measures, S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 8  
 
especially to any residency requirements that might be part of licensing and qualification requirements.  They noted it might be difficult to develop disciplines for visa procedures, and that the 
scope of application of any VI:4 disciplines must be carefully defined as limited to the movement of natural persons for the purpose of supplying servi ces under specific commitments.  While the VI:4 
sub-categories (a) to (c) might not be directly app licable, the basic concepts of not more burdensome 
than necessary and of objective and transparent criteria were certainly relevant.     
44. The delegation of Colombia
 thanked Members for their contributions, and was very pleased 
by the interest the subject had generated.  As Argentina had noted, the confusion over the issue 
demonstrated that it required more analysis.  Rega rding the comment that entry procedures did not fall 
under the purview of the Working Party, their paper sp ecifically stated that th e issue was not clear, as 
was explained by India and the Ph ilippines.  As Brazil had noted, sometime the delay in receiving a 
visa also caused a delay in receiving a license, and it was that linkage that Colombia wished to have 
the Working Party examine in greater detail.  For certain professions, no specific license was required, 
but the visa was the indispensable requirement to provide a service and had a similar function to a license.  Colombia believed such situations also need ed to be examined furthe r.  The exchanges in the 
Working Party had given greater clarity, and at the next meeting they hoped to bring more concrete 
examples for those areas where further clarity was required.   
45. The delegation of China
, regarding the questions on their statistics, did not have the specific 
details available, but believed that the number of applications from China was definitely increasing.  
Business visitors from China faced  increased barriers in obtaining visas, and the delegation observed 
that the denial of business visas negatively affect ed China's contracts for imports as well as for 
exports.  Regarding the question of whether applicants  did not meet the visa requirements, they noted 
that the key issue was the lack of transparency  concerning visa requirements and procedures.   
46. The Chairperson  closed the agenda item by observing th ere continued to be some divergence 
of opinions.  Delegations had show n flexibility, noting that the paper was based on real experience.  
Several delegations had asked that discussions be continued at next m eeting, and so he suggested that 
the Working Party take note of the statements made, and revert to the paper at the next meeting.  It 
was so agreed . 
Hong Kong, China Paper on National Treatment  
 
47. The Chairperson  moved to the paper from Hong Kong, China, Relationship of Regulatory 
Disciplines with Na tional Treatment , circulated as JOB (04)/24 dated 31 March 2004.  At the last 
meeting, Members had made additional comments, and some delegations had indicated they wished to 
keep the paper on the agenda for further discussion.  He opened the floor for any further comments.   
48. The delegation of the European Communities  said they thought it was a helpful paper in 
trying to rationalize the discussions, and to come forward with clear reasoning on the relationship 
between Articles XVI/XVII, Article VI:4 and possible future disciplines.   Members had tried to look 
at the issue when working on the Accountancy Disciplines , and it was always useful to come back to it 
in an attempt to make a clear distinction.  In that  regard, the grid in Hong Kong, China's newest paper 
(discussed subsequently) was a useful contribution to the discussion.    
49. The delegation of the Philippines  noted that Hong Kong, China's paper implied that some 
measures which should have been scheduled under Ar ticle XVII had not been scheduled.  That subset 
of measures was considered as  falling under Article VI:4 disciplines, as seemed to be indicated in 
paragraph 8 of the paper.  The delegation asked  if Hong Kong, China could provide further 
clarification.   
50. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  thanked the EC and the Philippines for their comments, 
and noted that the objective of their paper was to  ensure a common understanding within the Working  S/WPDR/M/28 
 Page 9 
 
 
Party that any Article VI:4 disciplines should start to apply at the point where Articles XVI and XVII 
ceased to apply, without leaving any gaps.  They  were open to ideas as to how that was to be 
achieved.  They emphasized that it was not Hong  Kong, China's purpose to try to "draw a line" 
between those measures subject to Articles XVI/XVII and those subject to Article VI:4 disciplines, 
but rather to make a distinction between  the application of GATS articles.   
51. In regard to the example provided earlier by th e U.S., i.e. foreign equity limits imposed by 
means of an application review process, they believed there was no point in trying to determine a 
priori  whether it was a measure subject to Articles XVI/XVII or one subject to Article VI:4 
disciplines.  Rather, the important point was to ensure that Articles XVI/XVII would apply to the 
foreign equity limits, while Article VI:4 disciplines w ould be able to apply to the application review 
process as a matter of administrative procedures.  When  examining the introductory paragraphs of the 
Accountancy Disciplines , the delegation was not entirely sure that the application review process in 
the U.S. example would fall under the scope of the Disciplines .  They emphasized it was important to 
not leave a gap in terms of application.   
52. Responding to the Philippines' question, thei r understanding was that, within a committed 
sector, the scope of measures under Article XVII was equal to the scope of measures subject to the 
GATS.  Article XVII was in principle actually an  obligation for a Member to provide National 
Treatment (NT) in a committed sector in respect to  all measures affecting the supply of services, and 
Article VI:4 measures were presumably a subset of the measures subject to the GATS.  Therefore, they believed that all Article VI:4 measures were to be provided NT, unless th e NT inconsistency was 
specifically scheduled under Articles XVI/XVII.  By trying to delineate a clear scope of application, 
the Working Party could help ensure that disciplin es under Article VI:4 were complementary to the 
existing disciplines under Article XVII.  Regarding the EC comments, the delegation agreed that 
reviewing the matrix might shed light on the NT ques tion.   In regard to the preamble idea expressed 
previously by Chinese Taipei, they would consider it further and come back with specific ideas.   
53. The Chairperson
 concluded the discussions by proposing that Members take note of the 
comments made.  It was so agreed . 
Examples Paper  
 
54. The Chairperson , moving to the Examples  paper ( Examples of Measures to be Addressed by 
Disciplines under GATS Article VI:4 ), noted that it had again been updated, in respect to the summary 
of discussions in Annex III.  The current  version was JOB(02)/20/Rev.9, dated 16  November 2004.  
Since the previous meeting, Brazil and Hong Kong,  China had circulated informal papers, as 
JOB(04)/169  and JOB(04)/166, both  dated  19 November.   Canada had also indicated they wished to 
offer further comments on the Examples  paper in informal mode.  The Chairperson  then asked Brazil 
to present their informal paper. 
Brazil Examples 
 
55. The delegation of Brazil  stated they had found some inter esting examples of measures that, in 
their view, fell under Article VI:4.  They remarked that by presenting the paper they did not intend to 
prejudge the legitimacy of the measures.  The thr ee examples concerned licensing requirements, with 
the first example being "License is conditional upo n the observance of the prohibition for services 
suppliers in the wholesale sub-sector to undertake retailing activities simultaneously".  The example 
was from the distribution sector, and was intended to ensure competition.   
56. Other two examples were related to telecomm unications, and were intended to ensure 
competition, with one being "License is conditio nal upon the observance of the prohibition for 
services suppliers acting in the fixed telephony sub-sector to undertake activities in the mobile 
telephony sub-sector simultaneously".   The third ex ample was ""Regulations relating to zoning being S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 10  
 
determined according to the competition environment, the principle of the greatest benefit of the user 
and the social and economic interests of the country ".  All three measures contained no discriminatory 
aspects.  Brazil hoped to foster debate around the ex amples, and to help Members to identify what 
measures fell under Article VI:4.   
57. The delegation of Canada
 asked for confirmation whether the examples were from 
government legislation, or from Members' GATS schedules.  The delegation of Brazil  replied that 
they had recently found an measure in a Member 's schedule which resembled somewhat the third 
example, but would argue that the measure did not  need to be scheduled as a restriction.   
Hong Kong, China Matrix  
 
58. The Chairperson  asked if Hong Kong, China would introduce their paper. 
59. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said their paper was an attemp t to facilitate the work of 
the WPDR in systematically examining the measures in the Examples  paper.  The paper tried to 
compare the measures in the Examples  paper with existing GATS provisions, as well as with the 
Accountancy Disciplines  and the proposals for regulatory disciplines from Japan and the EC.  The 
matrix was intended as a tool to assist Members to analyze and comment upon regulatory examples, 
and was not trying to prejudge the position of any Memb er.  It would be useful if Members, including 
those making proposals, contributed their though ts, to better understand wh ich elements of the 
proposals addressed specific measures in the Examples  paper.  The delegation drew attention, as noted 
in their paper, to the questions regarding the Examples  measures that Members had earlier agreed to 
ask.  A further question, in regard to the  Accountancy Disciplines  and the proposals for regulatory 
disciplines, would be ask what additional elements, if  any, were needed to address the measures in the 
Examples  paper.  They suggested that the matrix tables might be added to the Examples  paper, to be 
subsequently updated by the Secretariat.   
60. The delegation of Canada  welcomed the paper, and observed a general similarity with their 
own assessments.  They agreed there needed to be  more clarity in some of the examples, and 
encouraged other delegations to share their own assessments.  Regarding the references to differing 
requirements at the federal and state levels, the delegation strongly noted there was no GATS 
requirement to harmonize such requirements between jurisdictions.   
61. The delegation of Colombia  stated that the Hong Kong, Ch ina paper met the requests that 
certain delegations, including Colombia, had made for more structure.  They supported adding the 
matrix to the Examples  paper, and agreed with paragraph 3 of  the paper that many of the examples 
were not sufficiently precise.  They believed it woul d be interesting if the similar measures could be 
linked, e.g. item 34 was similar to item 42, as we re items 35 and 40, as well as items 41 and 50.  The 
matrix made it easy to see what aspects of regul atory disciplines had adequately been covered, 
e.g. transparency, and to see where th e issues required further analysis.   
62. The delegation of Mexico  said the paper very clearly emphasized the problems that Members 
had encountered, and suggested that the same matrix structure could be used for analyzing other cases 
and examples.   
63. The delegation of India  said that the matrix brought together various issues addressed by the 
Work Party, and gave an indication of where there might be gaps in terms of the existing proposals.  
For example, transparency issues appeared to be well-covered, wh ile qualification requirements were 
one aspect where a possible gap existed.  Regard ing Canada's comment, the delegation said that 
differing requirements at the federal and state levels might nonetheless be an issue of more 
burdensome than necessary.    S/WPDR/M/28 
 Page 11 
 
 
64. The delegation of the Philippines  commended Hong Kong, China for their efforts, and said 
the paper helped identify areas not addressed by the ex isting proposals for Article VI:4 disciplines.    
The paper was also an effective tool in looking  at how certain measures might or might not be 
covered under specific GATS provisions.  In examin ing the matrix, it appeared that a number of 
measures were subjects for Article VI:4 disciplines, and not addressed by other GATS provisions. 
65. The delegation of Japan  said that Hong Kong, China's paper was excellent for thinking about 
concrete disciplines, and they would offer comments at the next meeting.   
66. The delegation of Argentina  stated that paper would serve as a reference for future 
discussions, and that the matrix was very useful for assessing the need for any additional provisions, 
and the form they must have, to solve the problems raised in the examples.   
67. The delegation of Australia  said that the matrix was a useful tool that should help facilitate a 
more structured discussion in the Working Pa rty on disciplines under Article VI:4.   
68. The delegation of Thailand  found the paper extremely useful in organizing Members' 
thoughts and future discussions.  They agreed with the previous speakers that the matrix showed not 
only how relevant examples from the real world were addressed under the GATS and the negotiating 
proposals, but also issues that had been  left out and needed to be addressed. 
69. The delegation of Peru  agreed that some examples in the matrix could be grouped together, to 
help determine better on what GATS provisions and wh at lacunae in the negotiating proposals, etc. 
the Working Party should focus its work.   
70. The delegation of Singapore  noted the extent to which many examples were addressed   by the 
Accountancy Disciplines  and the Japanese and EC proposals, and that some examples were not fully 
covered, e.g. visa procedures.  They also noted that some provisions of the Accountancy Disciplines  
were not covered in the negotiating proposals.   
71. The Chairperson  then raised the question of in corporating the matrix into the Examples  paper.   
72. The delegation of Canada  said that, if the matrix was included, there would need to be some 
sort of caveat included regarding the pr eliminary nature of the matrix.   
73. The delegation of Japan  indicated they had some reservations regarding the Chair's proposal. 
74. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  thanked colleagues for their comments, and reiterated 
that the paper did not prejudge whether the examples  must be addressed by Article VI:4 disciplines.  
Blanks in the matrix did not necessarily imply that  the examples concerned must be addressed by 
Article VI:4 disciplines.  The main purpose of the ma trix was to facilitate analysis by Members as to 
whether the regulatory examples had already been addressed by existing GATS provisions, the 
Accountancy Disciplines  or the proposals from Japan and the EC.  In the future, as more negotiating 
proposals were put forward, it would be useful to  continue the overview, and therefore they had 
suggested that the matrix be added to the Examples  paper.  They agreed that appropriate caveats 
regarding the matrix would be needed, similar to the existing caveats in the Examples  paper.  As noted 
by some delegations, certain examples were not sp ecific enough to allow a clear determination of 
whether they could be addressed by existing GATS provisions.  A similar question was whether the 
regulatory examples were addressed sufficiently by existing GATS disciplines, the Accountancy 
Disciplines  or the negotiating proposals, and it would be useful if the Members providing the 
regulatory examples could share their views.   
75. The delegation of India , regarding adding the matrix to the Examples  paper, noted there could 
be some elements of judgement in determini ng whether the regulatory were addressed by existing S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 12  
 
GATS disciplines, the Accountancy Disciplines  or the negotiating proposals, and agreed that the 
appropriate caveats must be included.   
76. The delegation of Korea
 said incorporating the matrix into the Examples  paper would be very 
useful, and suggested adding to the matrix the comme nts made previously on the regulatory measures.  
They supported the idea of examining closely ho w existing GATS provisions could actually satisfy 
the issues and problems raised by Members.  Th e delegation suggested examining the GATS column 
of the matrix, especially the entries with an asteris k that indicated the partial or potential applicability 
of GATS provisions. 
77. The Chairperson  noted that some delegations were s till consulting capital, and suggested that 
the Working Party revert to the paper at the next  meeting, as well as reverting to the question of 
including the matrix in the Examples paper.  He thanked Hong Kong, China for the hard work in 
creating the paper.   
Canada Comments  78. The Chairperson
 then suggested that the Working Part y switch to informal mode, and asked 
Canada to present its comments. 
79. Returning to formal mode, the Chairperson  opened the floor for further comments by 
Members. 
80. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  asked if the Examples paper would be updated to reflect 
the new contributions.   
81. The Chairperson  confirmed that the Examples paper would indeed be updated, with the 
comments made in informal mode added to the Summa ry of Discussions in Annex III of the paper.   
82. The delegation of Canada , with respect to the question of reorganizing the Examples paper  in 
matrix format, enquired whether the Secretariat c ould be asked to prepare a sample page, to be 
followed by an informal discussion by Members. 
83. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said they understood that it was a question of adding a 
matrix format to the existing narrative format, and that they welcomed a sample page.   
84. The Chairperson  suggested that Members revert to the Brazil and Hong Kong, China papers 
for the next meeting, and that the Examples paper would be updated in narra tive form.  In the interim, 
delegates could consider whether the matrix, includ ing the comments, should be incorporated into the 
Examples paper, with the understanding that the comme nts were from delegates and were not the 
view of the Secretariat or the Members as a whole.  He concluded by proposing that Members take note of the formal statements made, and revert to th e papers at the next meeting.  It was so agreed
. 
(b) Development of Disciplines for Professional Services 
 85. Regarding the Secretariat paper, Results of Secretariat Consul tations with International 
Professional Services Organizations , the Chairperson
 noted that an updated compilation of the 
comments received to date had been circ ulated as JOB(03)/126/Rev.4, dated 15  November 2004.  He 
asked the Secretariat to introduce the revised paper. 
86. A representative of the Secretariat  noted that the only change to the paper was on page 10, as 
indicated in bold, and was a preliminary respon se from the International Federation of Surveyors 
(FIG), who noted "According to our considerations the proposals are in line with the FIG policies in 
these topics", and provided some relevant documenta tion, including on mutual recognition.  Since the  S/WPDR/M/28 
 Page 13 
 
 
paper was circulated, the Secretariat had also re ceived a response from the International Union of 
Lawyers (UIA), who indicated that "The UIA is of the view that ab initio  the concept of applying the 
Accounting Disciplines to regulate the legal profe ssion is misplaced because of the dissimilarity 
between the fundamental natures of the two professions".     
87. The Chairperson  opened the floor for comments by Members on the Secretariat paper, as well 
as for updates on their domestic consultations regarding the applicability of the Accountancy 
Disciplines to other professions.  
88. The delegation of Canada , regarding the Secretariat consultations, said they were glad to see 
that FIG had responded, noting that in Canada's domestic consultations the land surveyors had also 
expressed interest.  They emphasized that professional input was important, and urging the Secretariat 
to continue the consultations, asked wh en additional comments might be likely. 
89. A representative of the Secretariat  replied that, although past promises for responses had not 
entirely been fulfilled, they hoped for ad ditional responses in the near future.  
90. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said it was useful to review the comments and to see the 
interest generally expressed by international prof essional bodies, which they  hoped would also be 
expressed by domestic professional organizations.  As  a general comment, the delegation asked what 
should be the next step after the consultations, and noted that perhaps professional bodies would like 
the chance to make specific comments on more concrete proposals from the Working Party.   
91. The Chairperson  concluded the agenda item by inv iting Members to take note of the 
comments made and to return to the paper at  the next meeting.  It was so agreed.  
C. DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
92. The Chairperson  suggested that, as was the usual practice, the next WPDR meeting be held 
during the next services cluster, subject to confirma tion of the dates of the upcoming Services Cluster 
by the Special Session of the Council for Tr ade in Services.  It was so agreed.  
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
93. The Chairperson  asked, apart from possible further examples by Colombia and Mexico, 
whether any other delegations had any papers or proposals they were considering for the next 
meeting.  He noted there were probably only three formal meetings of the Working Party before the 
Hong Kong Ministerial to deliver what Member s had stated they wished to accomplish.  
Consequently, the Working Party from February might  need to "shift up a gear", but the decision 
rested with Members.  He urged Members to come forward with further papers and proposals as best 
they could.   
94. The delegation of the United States  noted they had already indicated the ideas their delegation 
wished to put forward in the Working Party, and emphasized there was no agreement to progress 
other than what was indicated in the July D ecision and the Negotiating Guidelines.  They had 
expressed the opinion "to progress", while other delegations had expressed the opinion to progress by a certain date.  The delegation reiterated they were  determined to put forward certain ideas, and to 
continue the proposals which they had tabled.  They were interested in enga ging other delegations on 
their ideas, and recognized the importance that other Members had put to timelines.   
95. The delegation of the Philippines
 noted they were one of the delegations that wished to have 
progress achieved in the Article VI:4 negotiations, an d had some concrete ideas on how to move the 
negotiations forward.  In regard to "shifting g ears", they hoped that the door was not closed to 
possible contributions.  Among the concrete ideas th ey had in mind to be further reflected upon and S/WPDR/M/28 
Page 14  
 
elaborated, they hoped the disciplines would be mode -neutral, and not exclude any particular mode of 
supply, with no a priori  exclusion of sectors.  The delegation wi shed to indicate there might be further 
contributions "in the pipeline", to be presen ted before the Hong Kong Ministerial.    
96. The Chairperson
 emphasized that of course the "door was open", and would remain open for 
any Member to put forward proposals and ideas as long as the discussions continued.    
97. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said the way they understood the Chairperson's 
statement was as a reminder that progress would be reviewed for the Ministerial, in accordance with 
the recommendations of the July package.  Also, th ey were aware that if the Working Party was to 
aim for a certain substantial outcome in the nego tiations, then Members would need to organize 
themselves in order to reach a certain stage of progress by a certain time.     
98. The Chairperson  said he would not want to have anything more read into his brief statement 
other than to say that the remaining time was lim ited  for whatever progress the Working Party wished 
to achieve.   
__________