RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/50 
4 December 2009 
 (09-6250) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 30 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Chairman: Mr. Mr. Khalid I. Emara (Egypt)  
Agenda of the Meeting           P a g e  
 
1. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ....2 
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Pr oducts (G/IT/1/Rev.41) ..........................................................2  
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Types of Conformity Assessment  
Procedures for EMC/EMI used by IT A Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.4)...........................2  
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ......................................................................................................... 3 
5. Divergences in Classifying In formation Technology Products 
(G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11).....................................................4  
6. Proposal from the European Communities1 Concerning the Review of the 
Information Technology Agreement (ITA) ............................................................................8  
7. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ......20  
8. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2008) (G/IT/W/29) ..............................................21  
9. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........21  
10. Date of the ne xt meeting ....................................................................................................... ..21 
 
_______________ 
 Introduction 
 
 The Committee adopted
 the proposed agenda for the meeting which was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/3264 on 17 October 2008, with an addition to take up the "review of product coverage", 
and the "date of the next meeting" under "other bu siness". An annotated agenda for this meeting was 
also contained  in JOB(08)/ 105 dated 17 October 2008.   
 
                                                      
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisb on, 13 December 2007) en tered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779 ) from the Council of the European Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. G/IT/M/50 
Page 2 
 
 
  1. Election of Chairperson 
1.1 The Committee re-elected  Mr. Khalid I. Emara (Egypt) as Chairman.  In highlighting the 
importance of world trade in IT products, he emphasized the importance of the work of the Committee, and the significant contributions that th e ITA had made to the multilateral trading system 
with a view to liberalizing world trade in IT pr oducts.  He hoped the Committee, as well as its future 
work programme, could contribute to the efforts intended at sending a strong positive signal to the 
world that the ITA participants were determined to  do their utmost in maintaining the world trade in 
IT products as free, open and liberal as possible.   2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.41) 
2.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of implementa tion of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.41.  This 
document showed the participants and the issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for 
implementation.  He pointed out that as indicated in the document, the completion of domestic legal 
procedural requirements for El Salvador is still pending.  Moreover, contacts were made with the 
delegations of Morocco and Panama to accel erate the process of submitting their formal 
documentation. He said that he would  keep the Par ticipants informed of any new development in this 
regard. He looked forward to pa rticipants' updates or comments concerning these implementation 
matters.    
2.2 The representative of the United States
 supported the Chair's efforts in this regard and hoped 
he could communicate with those participants w ith a view to completing the required process.  
 
2.3 The representative of Panama  reiterated his government's interest in the ITA and informed the 
Committee that the Minister of Trade and Industry  of Panama, in coordina tion with other national 
institutions, presented to the WTO an up-to-date list on 16 September 2008. On 3 October the 
Secretariat transmitted some suggestions and comments with respect to the descriptions of some tariff 
lines.  At the moment, the Minister of Trade and Industry was reviewing the comments by the 
Secretariat in order to resolve the pending issues so  as to ensure Panama's adherence to the ITA. 
 2.4 The Chairman
 thanked the delegate of Panama for his updated information and urged those 
participants that had not followed the procedures for the formal rectification and modification of 
schedules as required by the Decision of 26 March 1980 on Procedures for Modification and 
Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, to make their submission as soon as possible.  He 
said that the Secretariat would be availa ble for any help if so required.   
 2.5 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
  
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Ty pes of Conformity Assessment  Procedures 
for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.4) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Committee meeting on 24 February 2005, the Chair referred 
to Section III on Transparency of the Guideline for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures 
(G/IT/25), which suggests that a list of ITA partic ipants should be drawn up and categorized by the 
type of assessment procedure adopted. In this connection, the Chair ra ised two issues for the 
Committee to discuss:  (1) information availability;  and (2) structure/format of such a list. With 
respect to the first issue, it was agreed to encourage those particip ants who had not submitted a survey 
response to do so, and for those whose situation changed,  to am end their previous submission. On the 
second issue, the Secretariat, as requested, prepared a draft list (G/IT/W/17) as per Section III of the  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Guideline, indicating for each ITA participant whic h type of conformity assessment procedure it used 
based on the information available.  
 3.2 The Chairman
 reported that since then, four revisions to G/IT/W/17 were issued by the 
Secretariat to include the updated information provid ed by the participants with regard to their 
respective conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI projects. 
 
3.3 The Chairman  further indicated that at the Committee meeting on 31 October 2006, the 
Committee agreed that the Chair would write to t hose delegations that have not submitted a survey 
response, to urge them to provide the information concerning their conformity assessment procedures 
for EMC/EMI as soon as possible. Based on that, the Chair wrote to 20 delegations on 9 February 2007, including the 6 recently joined participants, asking them to provide information 
regarding the type of assessment procedures for EMC/ EMI being currently used by their authorities so 
as to enable the Committee to complete this work.  In res ponse to the Chair's communication of 
9 February 2007, information regarding the t ype of assessment procedures for EMC/EMI, was 
received by the Secretariat from Malaysia, the Dominican Republic and Honduras.  Malaysia 
informed that there has been no mandatory c onformity assessment procedures imposed by the 
Malaysian authorities; the Dominican Republic said it  is using Supplier's Declaration of Conformity 
(SDoC), type 4 or category (f); and Honduras, as pr ovided for in its submission - G/IT/SPEC/Q4/26, 
has been using Certification by 3
rd party, type 2, or category (b).   
 
3.4 The Chairman  informed the Committee that these updates were being reflected in 
G/IT/W/17/Rev.4.   
3.5 The representative of the Philippines
 congratulated the Chair on hi s re-election.  She thanked 
the Chair for his efforts and was pleased to not e that his follow-up work had born fruit.   
 
3.6 The Chairman  encouraged those participants who had not provided such information to do so 
without any further delay so as to enable the Co mmittee to complete its work in this regard.  
 
3.7 The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
 4. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G /IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
4.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at the previous meetings of the Committee, several delegations 
emphasized the importance of the Committee's work on NTBs in the ITA sector and reported the 
developments in NAMA negotiations, where two de legations had made their proposals on NTBs in 
the electronic sector, concerning barriers such as: non-r ecognition of international standards;  lack of 
transparency and openness in domestic standard ization processes; and unnecessary burdensome and 
duplicative conformity assessment procedures.  He invited these delegations to update the Committee 
on this matter.  
 
4.2 The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair for raising this important issue 
again and appreciated the work that had been do ne on NTBs in both the Committee and the NGMA. 
In his view, reducing regulatory barriers to trade in the IT sector remained a very important issue to 
his authorities and especially to the US industries.  Since the Committee's last meeting, his delegation 
tabled a proposal on NTBs in the NGMA in April 2008, which was built on the WTO TBT 
Agreement, the work done in this Committe e regarding the EMC/EMI conformity assessment 
procedures, and APEC's work programme with an  end goal of reliance on common standards, and 
acceptance of suppliers' declaration of conformity . He stated that the proposal was designed to 
increase and facilitate trade for the prevention of  unnecessary NTBs so as to promote innovation and 
competition in the electronic sector and provide benef its to consumers in a form of lower costs and G/IT/M/50 
Page 4 
 
 
  greater choice of products. He understood that other countries also tabled NTBs  proposals in the 
NGMA. He noted that in the on-going discussions in the NGMA on NTBs, his delegation and others 
attempted to develop a joint approach to NTBs. He further noted that there had been further 
discussions on this issue in the NGMA on 3rd November 2008. While the NGMA seemed to be an 
appropriate venue for continuing these discussions on  NTBs at this point, however, his delegation 
suggested the ITA committee and the NGMA continue  to inform each other on the progress and work 
accomplished in each forum. 
 4.3 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that his delegation would go along 
the same lines as mentioned by the US delegate. His delegation also appreciated the work on NTBs 
for the electronics being re-launched in the NGMA  based on the substantial work done in the 
Committee. He said that the EC's concern regardi ng the need to reduce regulatory barriers was well-
known. He noted some of the contributions and do cuments that delegations were analysing at the 
moment already went back to 2003 and probably delegations needed to examine how they could look into ways to further this process.  In his view , discussions in both NGMA and the Committee were 
important. He expected that this work wo uld be accelerated and lead to results.  
 4.4 The Chairman
 felt the work on NTBs in the Comm ittee as important as the work done in 
other Bodies. He also felt it was important that pa rticipants be provided with the information and 
opportunity to continue their discussion on NTBs. He suggested the Committee reve rt to this issue at  
future meetings.   
 
4.5 It was so agreed . 
 5. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11)  
 - List V Items and Specific Questions Referred to the Committee to be  
  addressed (G/IT/W/15 and  G/IT/W/6/Rev.3)   - Updated Summary of Discussions by the Secretariat – List V  (G/IT/W/20,  
  JOB(07)/91/Rev.1 and JOB(07)/91/Rev.1/Corr.1) 
 - Communications from WCO Concerning th e  Classification of Set Top Boxes 
  (G/IT/W/26 and G/IT/W/26/Add. 1 + Add.2)  
 - Other  lists of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3    
5.1 The Chairman
 reported on his consultati ons with some participan ts on 1 October 2008, during 
which several indicated the importance of this exer cise and emphasized that a lot of time and energy 
were spent by the Customs experts, which was succ essful. He said that they also informed him that 
this would be a worthy-enough item for the agenda of  the meeting and they would need to consider 
how to bring the current process of discussions forwar d, or in other words, what to do next on this 
subject.  
5.2 The Chairman
 said that one way to bring the current  process forward, as suggested by one 
participant, would be that for those items wher e there was agreement in the Experts Group, the 
Committee would need to confirm them and take  necessary steps to implement those agreed 
classification.  Another participant proposed two opt ions for the way forward: one would be a formal 
decision by the Committee with respect to these items where experts had agreed. However, in 
recognition of the fact that the ITA at the moment  had 71 participants and many of them had not 
participated in any of these expert meetings, it woul d therefore be difficult to ask them to accept these 
changes which came out of a process they did not par ticipate in.  The other option would be to simply 
publish the agreed items in the form of an Unde rstanding of the Committee. That would entailed 
issuing a formal document reflecting the result of th ese discussions, with the intention to serve as an 
advisory note.  Another two par ticipants came out with the idea of having some sort of a work  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 5 
 
 
  programme including not just List V, but also othe r Lists, to bring the current process of discussions 
forward.  As for List V, one participant reminde d the Committee that those items discussed at the 
level of Customs experts were brought to the atte ntion of the Committee be cause Experts could not 
reach agreement on them. It was obvious that those items would need policy decisions and could not 
be resolved at the technical level.   
 
5.3 The Chairman  recalled that for List V , the Committee had before it the updated summary of 
discussions on all 20 items of List V -  G/IT/W/20. It also had before it the room document prepared by the Secretariat on categorization of the 20 items  in List V divided into two groups: one category 
included the easy items for which convergence towa rds consensus was foreseeable and could be 
achieved;  the other category was for the more  difficult items where no majority position or no 
consensus could be achieved. Later on the room document, as suggested by some delegations, was 
issued as a job document – JOB(07)/91.  Based on views and comments provided by some delegations 
at previous meetings, the Secretariat prepared JOB(07)/91/Rev.1 as well as its Corr.1, reflecting answers received from 9 delegations. While this in itself was positive development, it should be noted 
that a large number of participants had not responde d yet.  At the last meeting, the Chairman urged 
the remaining participants to do their best to respond to the Committee in this regard.   
 
5.4 The Chairman
 further recalled that, at one of its previous meetings of the Committee, he 
mentioned that at the informal held in March 2007, one delegation commented that it would not be 
useful to restart or re-activate the process of discussions among the participants on these List V items 
again, and suggested that a decision document be prepar ed in the form of a Chair's paper. In the view 
of that delegation, the decision document, based on  the discussions and information available to the 
Secretariat, should be simple in its form, indi cating for each of these 20 items whether there was a 
potential for consensus or not.  Then, it could be pr esented to the Participants for their comments.  
Another delegation thought that this might be prem ature to continue the discussions on controversial 
items in the Committee.  Since the Participants were not in the position to ask the Chair to prepare 
such a document, it was agreed th at the Committee would wait for inputs from the Participants and 
revert to the issue at its future m eeting.  At the meeting, he asked the participants to give their inputs, 
comments, or suggestions, if any.  
 5.5 The representative of Japan
 thanked the Chair for his efforts in this regard.  He recalled that at 
the Committee meeting held in March 2007 the Ch air requested participants to provide their 
comments and Japan supported the Chair's position to finalise this work programme as soon as 
possible. At the meeting, he requested that this work be continued.  
 
5.6 The representative of the Philippines  drew the attention of the Committee to G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 
of 20 December 2004, and referred to what the Chair suggested on the possible way forward, 
especially for these products where there was agreemen t on how they should be classified, mainly, on 
pages 2 and 3 of that document. She said that he r delegation would like to know what would be 
alternatives since the classifications of these produc ts were waiting to be certified and implemented. 
The participants would need to have a discussi on on how they intended  to proceed with these 
products, where the Experts had already agreed.  
 
5.7 The Chairman  underlined that these ideas were suggest ed by the participants rather than 
himself, and he was only reporting on what was expressed by the participants at the informal 
consultations that he had conducted.  He said that there would definitely be an opportunity to repeat 
this exercise again.   
5.8  The representative of the European Communities
 commented on these items where there was 
already agreement at the expert level and noted th at such agreement was reflected as appropriate in 
participants' schedules. He said that the question w as what to do with the other items where further 
work was still needed.  He suggested, as was done in  the past, to hold a joint meeting with Customs G/IT/M/50 
Page 6 
 
 
  classification experts to go through these outsta nding items and see whether agreement could be 
reached. He said that in so far as necessary, if th ere would be participants  who did not have the 
opportunity to participate in the Customs experts mee ting, then there might be a need to revisit them 
again. If there would be a need for an ad-hoc session the EC would not mind. However, the EC 
already noted the progress made and would like to move to the items on which there was no 
agreement yet. 
 
5.9 The representative of the Philippines  referred to the EC's pr oposal of convening another 
Customs expert meeting and commented that from her delegation's perspective, the Customs experts 
at that time considered these items and had a dead lock, and that was why there were these types of 
classification as indicated in G/IT/W/6/Rev.3. Howeve r, her delegation would not block the consensus 
if there would be a desire to have anot her round of the Customs expert meeting. 
 
5.10 The Chairman  thanked the Philippines for their openn ess and willing to engage on this in 
ways that they felt were the right course forward.  He reminded the participants again that some items 
would need policy decisions rather than to get them r esolved at the technical level.  In his view, this 
had to be borne in mind when approaching the different  options.  He said that it was also suggested to 
include other Lists in the work programme not just  List V. On the openness to suggestions from the 
participants on a way forward, he stated that ther e was the EC's suggestion of holding another expert 
meeting while some others were of the view that some  of the items could not be resolved at the expert 
level.  He thought the Committee should listen furthe r to other suggestions w ith a view to moving the 
process forward.  He said that he was more than  willing to help if there would be an emerging 
consensus on how to move the process forward and f acilitate if needed in bringing the participants 
together in whatever format they felt comfortable.  
 
5.11 The representative of Canada  stated that in terms of the Li st V items, they were sceptical of 
the value of convening new Customs expert meetings , and there was a number of policy decisions that 
his colleagues back in capital had to make rather th an the Customs officials.  With reference to the 
options and what the Chair heard from the participants about moving forward on List I-A, he said that 
all of those were positive and if that was someth ing the Committee could actually consider and spend 
some time in the near future as there were actually  agreements among the Customs experts. However, 
he noted that in fact there was a number of new pa rticipants who did not participate in the discussions, 
and perhaps, there was divergence in their schedules with respect to those items. However, the issue 
raised by others might not actually exist at all a nd in any event, he felt that it would be a useful 
exercise to try to figure the method by which t hose items could actually be brought to a conclusion 
and List I-A could be closed.  
 5.12  The Chairman
 said that there had no objection to Cana da's suggestion, which could definitely 
bring this process forward as List I-A gathered a large consensus in the past.  He suggested the 
Committee to take note of Canada's appeal throug h further discussions, for which he would convene 
an informal meeting. 
 
5.13 The representative of Singapore  stated that several delegations were interested in this issue 
and so was his delegation. He said that the Chair fl oated several suggestions and they also heard the 
proposal by Canada, and wondered whether it would be possible to bring discussions forward. He 
wondered whether it would be possible for the Chair to list these options in his own responsibility and 
circulate it to the participants, and convene an informal meeting just to discuss these issues 
specifically, and then perhaps the participants coul d also scope up precisely what was the issue and 
what were the suggestions heard thus far, including  the suggestions by the Ch air and the proposal by 
Canada, thus to enable the Participants to  find a way to bring the discussions forward. 
 5.14 The Chairman
 suggested to call for further consultati on and ask the Secretariat to prepare a 
short document listing some of these options discu ssed at the meeting. He said that Canada's  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 7 
 
 
  suggestion and his suggestions could be the basis fo r informal consultations, and then, he could call a 
meeting to reach an agreement on a way forward fo r this exercise.  He promised to give the 
participants a chance to reflect on some of the issues they were exploring.   
 
5.15  The representative of the European Communities  stated that they were ready to go along and 
see the options paper.  They thought that there was still work in this area not completed. They 
assumed that among these options participants would be given the opportunity to do further work at 
the expert level and see whether further progress c ould be achieved in the areas where there was no 
agreement.  They took note of the concerns/reserva tions by some participants and were of the view 
that it was worth having another go before the Comm ittee takes it up for decision. However, he said 
that he was afraid that for policy decision, par ticipants might not make as much progress as experts 
could achieve at this stage. 
 
5.16 The representative of the Philippines  reiterated that if there would be a consensus to have an 
expert level meeting her de legation would not oppose it. 
 
5.17  The representative of Singapore  indicated that his intention would be constructive with a view 
to bringing this process forward. However, he felt th at things could only be taken one step at a time. 
He understood that Chair would issue an option paper in which Chair would scope what the issue 
would be. In considering the options, it would also need  to consider the sort of resources that could be 
made available for the deliberations. He took note of  the EC's suggestion of trying to bring Customs 
and trade policy experts to come to Geneva to discuss it and pointed out that this would require 
certain resources.  He suggested that after having discussed in an informal mode on how the options 
would entail resources and what each option could ach ieve, they could then inform capitals on what 
sort of resources might be needed to be brought to Geneva. 
 
5.18 The Chairman  said that he fully understood the issue raised on resources.  
 5.19  The representative of Canada
 wanted to make it clear that there would be two separate issues: 
firstly, there were Lists where divergences still exis ted and for these divergences whether there were 
two or three different tariff classifications, or othe rs where it could not be decided among participants 
themselves as what it should be; secondly, the issue of List I-A where at least the Participants who 
were part of the consultations – the Customs e xpert meeting – had agreed among themselves that 
there was one specific tari ff item that was being identified for that  product. He said that he was in 
agreement with Singapore that it would be useful  to have Chair's option paper as suggested, in 
particular, on List I-A, where those who were involved had already agreed with a view to bringing it 
to a close.  However, on the question raised by the Chair for those Participants who did not participate 
in those consultations, he said that their situation was not known, perhaps they had already taken the 
agreed items of List I-A into account.  Therefore, it might be useful to have a discussion on both the 
process of the way forward and what was the situation of those participants w ho did not take part in 
the discussions. 
 
5.20 The Chairman  stated that his understanding was in line  with the Canadian delegate and he 
would try to put out an option paper and get conf irmation from the new participants on List 1-A.  
With regard to the work programme  suggested by other delegations, he suggested the Committee take 
note of the discussions and the Secretariat prep are a short document with clear options that 
participants had suggested to the Chair in previ ous consultations.  Also, it would reflect the views 
expressed by different delegations at the meeting, including their suggestions on different options and 
moving forward to the next stage in an informal mode.   
 
5.21 It was so agreed .  
 G/IT/M/50 
Page 8 
 
 
  5.22 The Chairman  recalled that on List III  of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 - classification of set top boxes, on 
23 January 2004, the Chair forwarded this item to  the World Customs Organization requesting the 
Harmonized System Committee to provide its opinion on the classification of "set top boxes which 
have a communication function: a microprocessor-based  device incorporating a modem for gaining 
access to the internet, and having a function of inter active information exchange ". The Chairman also 
recalled that in November 2005, the Deputy Director of Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate of the 
WCO Secretariat informed us of the HS Committee 's deliberations and decision on this issue. A 
decision was taken at the 36th Session of the WCO HS Committee held in September 2005. This decision is reproduced and circulated in document G/IT/26. The Chairman further recalled that on 
14 September 2006, the Director of the WCO Tariff a nd Trade Affairs Director ate informed us that 
ultimately, the HS Committee decided to classify th e apparatus as reception apparatus for television, 
in heading 85.28 (sub-heading 8528.12), by appli cation of General Interpre tative Rules 1 and 6.  
However, it remained for the WC O HS Committee to determine where the product would fall to be 
classified in the 2007 edition of the HS, since the heading and sub-heading texts will change on 
1 January 2007. This question was on the agenda  for the 38th Session of the WCO HS Committee 
which took place from 2 to 13 October 2006.   On  16 October 2006, another communication from the 
Director of the WCO Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate was received, indicating that during the 38th Session of the HS Committee, which ended on 13 October 2006, "the Committee agreed by 
consensus that the same set top box would be classi fiable in subheading 8528.71 in 2007." However, 
it also stated that: "Pursuant to Article 8 of the HS Convention, Contracting Parties may enter a reservation on the decision of the Committee for tw o months from the beginn ing of November 2006. 
A reservation would normally cause the matter to be sent back to the Committee for reconsideration. 
In the absence of any such reservation, the co rresponding change to the Classification Opinion will 
become effective on 1 January 2007." 
 
5.23 The Chairman
 informed the Committee that, on 12 Marc h 2007, the Secretariat was informed 
by the Director of the WCO Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate that: "No reservation was lodged 
during the period provided in Article 8 of the HS Convention. Therefore, the decision to replace Classification Opinion 8528.12/4 with Classification Opinion 8528.71/4  became effective 
1 January 2007. The change is reflected in Amending Supplement 7 to the Compendium of 
Classification Opinions, which was published in Janua ry 2007."  At previous meetings in 2007, and 
give that the two-month reservation period was over,  the Chair had asked participants whether they 
would be in the position to consider to move this item from List III to  List I. However, one delegation 
stated that they would need more time for reflec tion. The Chair suggested that delegations follow the 
proposed course of action and revert to this sub-item at this Committee meeting.  Now, I would like to 
open the floor for comments.  After consultation with  the Secretariat could we move this item from 
List III to List I?    
5.24 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that they were still under 
consideration of the issue and from their side it would be premature to move it to List-I. 
 
5.25  The representative of the Philippines  said that in view of what was stated by the EC they 
would have no further question. 
 
5.26  The Chairman  suggested the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to it in 
its future meetings. 
 
6. Proposal from the European Communities Concerning the Review of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA) 
6.1 The Chairman  stated that this item was listed as a sepa rate agenda item at the request of the 
EC. On 15 September 2008, a communication was receiv ed from the EC concerning the review of the 
Information Technology Agreement (ITA). The proposal was circulated as: G/IT/W/28 and  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 9 
 
 
  TN/MA/W/107, in which the EC set out some initial views concerning the possibl e review of the ITA, 
including in particular the elimination of NTBs, the expansion of product coverage to take into 
account technological evolutions, the need to addr ess effectively classification divergences, and the 
expansion of ITA membership.  
 
6.2 The Chairman  reported that on 1 October 2008, he  consulted with some delegations 
informally and some clarifications were provided by  the EC, including its indication of the importance 
of discussing the proposal in the formal meeting. He  invited the EC to formally introduce its proposal 
and report on its consultati ons with other delegations. 
 
6.3 The representative of the European Communities  recalled that the ITA was clearly a success 
as shown by the expansion in trade in IT produc ts and the increased number of participants, and 
admitted, however, that the picture was not totally satisfactory. In his view, some problems persisted 
and some issues actually became more acute with ti me rather than solving themselves through the use 
of the normal mechanisms available under the ITA. According to him, issues mostly needed to be 
addressed were: firstly, with the elimination of tariffs achieved, the importance of NTBs became more 
apparent and acute because while tariffs were  no longer imposing a bur den on imported products, 
NTBs could constitute, in some cases, a definitive ba rrier for entry; secondly, technological evolution, 
since the ITA was agreed more than 12 years ago, quite a number of new products emerged and 
functions that were not foreseen before being intr oduced in existing products as being seen strangely 
in the implementation of the ITA in a number of areas with divergences of view, and, actually, even 
of principle that led to an important dispute settlement case. Also, a number of important countries 
had not yet joined the ITA. He said that for these  reasons, the EC considered that it was time to 
engage in a review of the ITA with a view of updating it and taking into account all these 
developments in a comprehensive manner while focu sing on the expansion of product coverage as 
well as on addressing the NTBs. This was a specific initiative concerning a particular agreement and 
therefore could be considered as a standalone initia tive. Even if some of the aspects overlapped with 
the on-going negotiations under NAMA, and in particul ar, there were discussions of another kind in 
another fora in the same house, under the DSU. He acknowledged this woul d have to address the 
concerns that arose from the fact that for some  products, there was  a case taking place under the 
DSU, and understood that the participants would n eed to avoid prejudging th e parties' positions in 
these separate procedures. He underlined that the EC's approach to the review exercise was quite 
open, or in other words, the EC looked at it with an open-mind. He felt the participants need to change 
gear to address those standing issues and when it comes, for instance, to interpretation or 
implementation the EC's view was qu ite well-known, i.e., the review to  update would be good to offer 
the best prospect for improvement and change.  He st ated that in the context of a review, the EC was 
willing to consider necessary flexibilities to update the existing agreement.  Thus, it was not just a 
question of implementation but also a willing to look in to matters that participants might be raising in 
the context of such a review. So, a bargain would be possible or otherwise it wouldn't seem feasible.  
Therefore, he asked participants to consider the EC 's proposal at face value. He further thought the 
Committee was now at a cross roads and for which th e time was delicate for the ITA. He argued that 
it would be appropriate to conduct a review, and ther efore, the EC came with a formal proposal for a 
way forward. He also raised several questions to the participants, asking for their feed back.  These 
would include: 1) whether participants would agree th at the ITA needed to be updated in a form to be 
determined so as to take into account the chronological  development and also to deal more effectively 
with NTBs; 2) if participants agreed that su ch an update was necessary, whether a process of 
consultations could be started in order to reach  convergence on the issues that would need to be 
addressed and how they would be addressed, in pa rticular, without prejudice to positions of the 
parties' in the current dispute settlement proceedi ngs; 3) in case there would be reservations on the 
start of a process, the EC would li ke to know whether there would be any possible alternatives that 
delegations would like to offer to address these outstanding issues, product coverage and NTBs in 
particular so that the process could be moved forward;  and 4) should such cons ultations be undertaken 
within a short period of time, or as short as possibl e in order for a decision to formally start the G/IT/M/50 
Page 10 
 
 
  review. He said that since this was the first tim e that the proposal was  examined, the EC was not 
suggesting this proposal appeared regularly as a recurring item in the Committee nor having it wait 
until next year to have any kind of examination. Fo r this reason, the EC would be willing to take any 
questions and provide clarifications with a view to addressing any concerns that other participants 
might have on its initiative. 
 
6.4 The representative of the United States  said that as one of the original signatories to the ITA 
and one of the leading exporters and importers of IT products, his authorities looked at the EC's 
proposal to update the ITA with great interest. He felt however that the proposal was quite brief as 
well as the communication, and his delegation s till had not received enough information about the 
specific elements in the proposal, such as, how each element would have to be negotiated and what 
would be the expected outcome of such negotiations , especially, if this proposal was going to have 
long-term implications, not only for the current ITA as well as renegotiations, and the proposals made 
in the Doha round, in the NGMA. He said that from their view they had a lot of specific questions and 
concerns about the proposal. They felt it would be premature to get immediate negotiations on any of 
these elements, and of course they would welcome fu rther information from the EC on the substance 
and the process of these proposed negotiations.  As a poi nt of clarification or answers to some of the 
questions raised by the EC, he stated that if th e proposal's premise on the idea that the existing ITA 
was in somehow inadequate despite  very good success, and that caused specific IT products to fall 
outside of the Agreement, they took the issue diffe rently and did not share the view that maintenance 
of the current Agreement would require some sort of  new negotiation. He stated that if the proposal 
talked about expanding the current Agreement to  cover additional products  under Paragraph 3 for 
duty-free treatment, they would of course support such specific efforts.  He pointed out that there had been many proposals mentioned by the US and other countries in the NGMA as well of addressing the 
NTBs which was an issue participants talked about ea rly in the meeting.  He reminded that there were 
specific proposals already in the NGMA and his dele gation had always supported the enlargement of 
the ITA membership.  He felt that the core concern was what specific new proposals or new 
mechanisms was this proposal recommending at the moment to address many of the issues that the 
participants had discussed.  He added that the US di d not feel it was proper to talk about the current 
dispute and should let it be on its own track.  He furt her added that if the EC was planning to address 
these issues which were the subject of the current di spute, the US would like to put a question of how 
to prevent that from colliding with one another, or in other words, how to prevent being implicated 
with the issue of product coverage which was the s ubject of the current dispute. He noted that the 
proposal had a lot of different ideas and they just wanted to make an assessment of what it actually 
aimed to do.  
 
6.5 The representative of Croatia
 agreed with the EC's arguments  for the review of the ITA and 
viewed that the ITA needed to be updated and cons ultations on this matter should be conducted.  He 
stated that Croatia subscribed to the EC proposal.  
 6.6 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked the EC for its proposal, elaboration and 
clarification. He stated that they were open to  the proposal so long as the review of the product 
coverage would be conducted within the meaning of paragraph 3 of the Annex to the ITA.  They also 
welcomed the initiative to expand the ITA Membership . As to the proposal on elimination of NTBs, 
they would like to see the EC's concrete proposal on the scope so that they could make a useful 
assessment on the merits and its relationship with the EC's current NTB proposal on electronics in the 
NGMA, which, as they understood, also addressed conformity assessment procedures. They also 
shared some of the concerns expressed by the US regarding the substance and process of the proposal 
and would appreciate if the EC could provide more details on these issues. 
 
6.7 The representative of Japan  thanked the EC for its ambitious proposal. He said that Japan, as 
one of the original participants to the ITA, and one  of the major exporters of IT products, agreed with 
the way that the ITA had been conducted during th e past 10 years or more. They would like to  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 11 
 
 
  contribute to the maintenance and importance of the ITA. He stated that on the one hand, in this 
context, they welcomed the EC's proposal but, on th e other hand, they shared the concerns expressed 
by the US and Hong Kong, China. They considered  that the EC's proposal to start the formal 
negotiations was premature in partic ular from two points. Firstly, it was not clear what would be the 
linkage between the proposal and the one that was ma de at the NGMA. For instance, with regard to 
the product coverage issues, Japan together with  several others made a sectoral proposal on 
electronics and the electronic products, which seemed to be a duplication. Another example, with 
regard to NTBs, as mentioned by the EC and the US , each of them made a proposal in the context of 
NGMA for NTBs in the electronic sector. Thus, Japan  would like to know the relationship with those 
proposals in other fora.  Secondly, the reason for Japan to think it was premature to start formal 
negotiations would be its linkage with the dispute settlement process which was also unclear.  Japan 
emphasized that the issues being discussed in the framework of the dispute settlement process were 
the products which already covered under the origin al ITA rather than new products, or additional 
products which fell outside of the current framewo rk. He stated that before having a clear 
understanding on those issues Japan would consider that it was premature to start the negotiations 
formally. 
 6.8 The representative of Singapore
, on behalf of ASEAN ITA participants (namely Indonesia, 
Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vi et Nam) thanked the EC for its proposal, which 
highlighted four categories of challenges faced by the Committee namely: (i) NTBs; (ii) product 
coverage; (iii) participation; and (iv) the mechanisms to tackle th ese challenges. They raised several 
questions to the EC; including how the EC would intend to pursue its proposal in both the ITA 
Committee and the NGMA.  Relating to participati on, the EC proposed that ITA participants and 
WTO members initiate negotiations to "include majo r producers of IT products still outside the ITA". 
ASEAN ITA participants asked who the EC would regard as major producers; how the EC would 
intend to engage these WTO Members; and how w ould these non-ITA participants become involved 
in the discussions taking place in the Committee. Re lating to product coverage, the EC proposed the 
review of product coverage and negotiations on the inclusion of products that presented specific 
challenges for the Participants Memb ers, they asked the EC to expl ain what products it regarded as 
presenting specific challenges for ITA Members; did the EC have a list of products which it would 
like to see be included into the ITA product coverage and would the EC like to share its list with the 
Participants; and whether the EC would intend to in clude the products identified and being considered 
in the current dispute panel proceedings. They not ed that in NGMA, Japan and other WTO Members 
have proposed a sectoral tariff liberalisation initia tive on electronics and electrical products, and asked 
whether there were products in this sectoral initiative that the EC would consider for inclusion into the 
ITA product coverage, and whether the EC would consider discussing with Japan and other WTO 
Members in the NAMA negotiation with the view of advancing the proposal. They noted that on NTBs, in NGMA, the EC submitted a proposal on sta ndards, technical regulations, and conformity 
assessment procedures related to the safety of electrical equipment and their electromagnetic 
compatibility (EMC), and separately,  the US also tabled a similar proposal. They asked whether the 
EC would desire for identical or similar provi sions found in its proposal to the NGMA to be 
considered by this Committee, and whether the EC would continue to advance its proposal in the 
NGMA. They further noted that the EC proposed to establish effective m echanisms to keep the 
Agreement up to date. In this context, they asked  what mechanisms the EC were seeking, and how 
would these mechanisms differ from those currently f ound in the ITA. They finally highlighted the 
ITA as a very important plurilateral sectoral Agreement, and they took a special interest in this 
Agreement because of their robust production and trad e profiles in IT products. They promised to put 
these questions in writing and thanked the EC for its efforts, time and attention.  
 
6.9 The representative of Israel
 recognised the importance of presenting the elements and the 
ideas in the EC's submission, and shared the asse ssment that the ITA had been successful for many 
Members of the WTO, in particular Israel as fa r as boosting and enhancing their support capacity of 
IT products.  He thanked the EC for bringing it forward in the Committee and its importance for the G/IT/M/50 
Page 12 
 
 
  future work of the Committee. He noted that many participants, and in particular the US who brought 
forward very valid and important questions in which Israel took also great interest. Israel would be 
interested in hearing soon the comm ents and answers to those particular aspects and questions that 
were raised today in order to better assess their unde rstanding of these ideas. He would take back the 
questions that were posed by the EC to the particip ants to Capital and hoped to continue and engage 
with the EC on a bilateral basis as we ll as under the auspices of the Committee. 
 
6.10 The representative of China  stated that they were open to further liberalisation in this sector 
and thanked the EC for its clarification and explana tion on the proposal. He highlighted several issues 
regarding the EC's proposal: firstly, what would be  the difference between the EC's proposal and the 
current ITA mandate and practices before the Comm ittee. They felt what would be needed was not a 
new mechanism but participants' political will and de termination for the liberalisation; secondly, what 
would be the implications for the on-going dispute settlement case if the participants started this 
review and vice-versa; thirdly, they knew EC was al so trying to explore the possibility to include this 
as a part of the NAMA negotiations, and there woul d be some overlaps between the proposed review 
and the NGMA in terms of both NTBs and the sectoral proposal. He said that the question was how to 
coordinate the two mechanisms so as to avoid u nnecessary duplication, and most of China's concerns 
were also touched by other Participants.  China w ould be open to discuss this issue with the EC and 
other Participants.  
 6.11 The representative of India
 stated that the WTO/GATT, as a rule-making organisation, in its 
60 years' history, had been either making new ru les or updating the old ones. Members negotiated 
new agreements or re-negotiated th e old ones. When the rules were hi ghlighted then came the dispute, 
or, in other words, to legislate and litigate. He sai d that the EC's proposal highlighted a number of 
issues of why the ITA should be reviewed, including the issue of product coverage and the lack of 
clarity on product coverage, leading to classifica tion disputes finally ending with dispute settlement; 
the problems of NTBs; and some important countries were still outside of the ITA. He stated that the 
proposal, as it was well explained, was defini tely supportable and in one word, it was 
"unexceptionable" as the Agreement would need to keep pace with development, with technological 
changes and only then participants could judge th e merits of the Agreement. That was what WTO 
Members had been doing, not only for the ITA but, al so for other agreements as well. Members had to 
update them. However, the crucial issue here was that  participants had to decide whether they should 
legislate and litigate at the same time. He noted th at many delegates had also expressed their concern 
over this issue. He also said that the review s hould be without prejudice to the outcome of the 
discussions and the decisions to be taken by the pa nel or even the appellate body. He said that the 
basic question was when would be the proper time to conduct an efficient review of the Agreement. In 
his view, these were basic questions and the concern expressed by many others was the very fact that 
this was discussed in other fora. The participants  had to decide on the basic issues before they 
proceeded further.  
 6.12 The Chairman
 thanked the delegate of India for reminding that the WTO is a rule-making 
organization and highlighting the importance of rules for the world to function.   
 
6.13 The representative of El Salvador  thanked the EC for its proposal and indicated that it was 
sent to Capital for consideration. As a preliminary reaction, she quoted a paragraph in the EC proposal 
which "proposes to start negotiations immediately in order for results to be reached in the shortest 
possible period of time; it could also be included as an outcome of the DDA negotiations." She asked 
the EC to provide some clarifications regardi ng the mandate; its relationship with the sectoral 
initiative in the context of NGMA; how it related to the NAMA negotiations and more specifically 
how to keep the general balance, including the S & D treatment for developing countries. She said 
that for the review of product coverage, they w ould like to know the scope, and what would be the 
additional products. On NTBs, they shared the con cerns expressed by other delegations. They would 
reserve their right to revert to this in the future.  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 13 
 
 
  6.14 The representative of Australia  welcomed the EC's efforts in making the proposal and its 
bilateral out-reach conducted recently. He said that Aust ralia, as an original signatory to the ITA, had 
in the past, proactively supported the efforts to en sure the successful operation of the Agreement for 
obvious reasons, including the ITA II negotiatio ns, product coverage discussions and the work 
programme on NTBs. They also remained mindful of the WTO dispute settle ment proceedings which 
went on parallel to these discussions and registered as  a third party to the dispute settlement panel. In 
terms of specific industry views, they continued to consult with industry and seek their views. He 
stated that at the outset Australia remained very supportive of attempts to improve the Agreement but, 
they equally remained cognisant of any risk that  the existing benefits of the Agreement were 
unravelled by those attempts. Thus, at this stage they raised four questions about the EC proposal. 
Firstly, on the time-frame, he posed a very strai ghtforward question on what sort of time-frame was 
the EC proposing. In this regard, he referred to the paragraph quoted by El Salvador from the EC's 
proposal, proposing to start negotiations immediately in  order for results to be reached in the shortest 
possible period of time, and the EC's reference to th e inclusion of the results in the DDA negotiations. 
Secondly, he asked the EC in which forum its propo sal would be pursued. He understood that others 
had already made reference to this and clearly the communication was distributed in both the 
Committee and NGMA. He wondered how one would pursue these discussions. In his view, the 
effects of it would need the Membership of those two different forums and they differed across the 
two so there would be real implications and diffe rences in dynamics depending on the forum in which 
this would be pursued. They would be interested in how the EC would see that working. Thirdly, he 
stated that there had been previous difficulties in pursuing what the EC was proposing. They noted 
that on product coverage and NTBs there had only been some limited success for the work 
programme on NTBs. They would be interested to  know the EC's thinking of how these previous 
obstacles could be overcome under its current proposal . Fourthly, he referred to the mechanism which 
the EC was proposing with a view to keeping the Agreement up-to-date and ensuring its taking into 
account of technological development and convergen ce. Furthermore, he asked what sort of 
mechanism was the EC envisaging in its proposal given the difficulties already encountered in the 
Committee.   
6.15 The representative of Canada
 shared the sentiments of most of the delegates who already 
spoke. He said that they were supportive of the efforts to liberalise trade in IT products and could agree on eliminating tariffs; removing unnecessary NTBs; and bringing in new participants. He stated 
that they had spent some time looking at the EC pr oposal; had one bilateral meeting with the EC, and 
raised a number of questions, including those raised at  the meeting.  They would be interested to hear 
the responses now or in the future as to how th e EC would view the process forward on its proposal. 
He specifically made two comments. One related to  a concern just mentioned by Australia about the 
roll-back in which they would not want to see any process whereby products currently in the ITA 
could actually be excluded. The other one was asking the EC to clarify what it was actually looking 
for in discussions amongst participants on NTBs in th is sector. He noted the proposal on electronics in 
the NAMA negotiations and wondered whether it was similar to the new EC proposal. He said that 
Canada would be interested in understanding a bit better how the EC would see two identical 
proposals being negotiated in two different fo ra with two different sets of Membership. 
 
6.16 The representative of Costa Rica
 thanked the EC for its proposal  and the introduction. He said 
that the ITA, as an important Agreement, had conduc ted the review of product coverage in the past 
but the participants were not able to make headway in that exercise.  He said that after preliminary 
analysis, he saw very few new features in the EC proposal. He recalled that in the context of NAMA 
negotiations, similar proposals were made with a view to incorporating additional products and 
negotiating NTBs for IT products. He also said that af ter having listened to the EC's statement, they 
realised that the EC was seeking a renegotiation or a broad revision of the ITA.  In his view, this did 
cause some concerns and did give rise to some doubts, and that was why they joined in posing many of the questions that were already raised by other delegations at the meeting. He stated that they 
agreed with the EC when it said that negotiations we re successful but they did not agree with what the G/IT/M/50 
Page 14 
 
 
  EC said that none of the mechanisms contained in the Agreement had functioned effectively.  They 
would say, as an initial comment, that the problem was not the Agreement per se .  The problem laid 
on how participants were implementing it. He said that with respect to the mechanisms, coverage, 
NTBs, they would like to know how would the EC seek  to improve or did they have other mechanism 
in mind.  They agreed with other delegations, in particular, with respect to mechanisms concerning 
technical changes in order to take into account t echnological development. They also agreed with 
other delegations that the EC's proposal was a duplica tion given the fact that the EC had presented the 
proposal both in the Committee and NGMA.  Thus, they would like to join others in posing the questions to the EC on how the EC would view the discussions on sectorals in the NGMA as well as 
its connection with the proposals on NTBs.  What was its connection with the time lines for the Doha 
Round.  He further referred to what was mentioned by El Salvador that the EC proposed to start the negotiations immediately and how it related to the EC's proposal to the D oha Round negotiations. He 
asked what the linkage was between the two.  He  said that while supporting the EC's proposal to 
include other products not covered by the ITA,  Costa Rica would like to know how the EC would 
plan to achieve this objective. He also supported si milar statements in asking how the EC related the 
proposal to the recent panel case on product coverage. 
 6.17 The representative of Korea
 expressed their appreciation to the EC for its proposal and 
explanation. He said that as a matter of principle th ey shared the EC's view on the necessity to keep 
the Agreement in line with technological developm ent process. However, after having heard the EC's 
explanation, his delegation, like Japan, US and others, was not very clear on how to decide their 
position and wanted to ask the EC for more clarificat ion on some of the issues which could help them 
decide. Firstly, he noted that on NTBs, discussions we re already initiated in other fora, such as this 
Committee and the NGMA. He wondered how th e new EC proposal differed from that and 
particularly, what were the reasons  or added value of having similar discussions in a different context. 
He asked whether there were any intended differen ces among those forums.  Secondly, he said that on 
product coverage, they would like to seek clarif ication on the meaning of "review the product 
coverage". ITA participants so far had been living under the curre nt product coverage without having 
the initiation of the negotiation and his delegation was of  the view that in order to make the review of 
product coverage meaningful, par ticipants should not limit themsel ves only to review the product 
coverage but clearly aim to expand the coverage to new IT products which they had no chance to 
discuss in 1996. Discussing products which had alrea dy been agreed to include, would be like going 
around in circles.  They also had concern on the roll-back effect as mentioned by Australia and 
Canada.  He felt that it would also be difficult to separate this discussion with the on-going panel 
proceedings.  Thirdly, he noted that the EC refe rred to the matter of establishing effective mechanism 
to keep the Agreement up to date and to ensure that in future it takes into account technological 
development and convergence. He said that Korea was not clear wh ether they really needed any 
additional mechanism but they wanted to hear  more about the specific ideas on the proposed 
mechanism.  Fourthly, he said that the EC proposed to include other major IT products. Korea 
welcomed EC's idea and supported the initiative, however, the most important things that Korea 
wanted to know would be how this  goal could be achieved. Korea wondered whether the EC had any 
specific plan or idea in this regard.  
 
6.18 The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the EC for its efforts in producing the proposal 
on IT product expansion, NTB elimination and enlarg ement of the membership. However, he felt that 
more detailed information would be needed befo re any decision could be made on whether any 
consultations could be held for the launching of the proposed new negotiations or not.  He posed, for 
instance, a number of questions, such as:  what would be the relationship between the proposal and 
the on-going NAMA negotiations; would this nego tiation take place under this Committee or the 
NGMA; if under the NGMA, would the EC intend to  initiate a new sectoral proposal; how could the 
participation be expanded and who would be invited if the pr oposed  negotiations took place under the 
Committee.  He noted that there were new particip ants who joined the Agre ement subsequently under 
the current mechanism. Therefore, he wondered wh ether there was a real need to start such new  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 15 
 
 
  negotiations.  He said that the most important issue would be which products to discuss for inclusion.  
He felt that the discussions on product coverage s hould not include the items already covered under 
the current ITA, and furthermore, negotiating an e xpansion on products should  not be perceived as 
having linkage to the matters at dispute.  He also asked about what NTBs proposal would be 
discussed  in addition to tariff matters. He wonde red whether the EC intended to submit a new NTB 
proposal or not, and thus, what would be the re lationship between the new EC NTB proposal and the 
NTB proposals already discussed in the NAMA ne gotiations.  He asked that more detailed 
information be provided by the EC so as to help his colleagues in Taipei evaluate the EC's new 
proposal. 
 
6.19 The representative of Norway  thanked the EC for its proposal and other delegations for their 
useful comments and questions. He said that Norway had for some time been interested in looking at 
the extension of product coverage of the ITA, and was in favour of ensuring the Agreement stayed 
relevant and dynamic through devel oping in tandem with the technological development. Therefore, 
Norway was positive towards the EC's new proposal  for reviewing the Agreement at the earliest 
possible convenience to the participants within the framework of the Committee. 
 6.20 The representative of Turkey
 noted that there were some positive elements in the EC's 
proposal and felt further discussions would be n eeded, including the elimination of NTBs and 
expansion of the membership. He recognized that  the rapid changing technologies in the sector would 
require updating of the product covera ge as provided for in the Agreemen t.  He also recognized that 
there would be an undeniable linka ge of the proposal with the on-going sectoral negotiations in the 
NGMA which was a valid one and needed to be caref ully considered before starting the immediate 
work in the Committee.  He said that Turkey was ready to work with the EC and others in the 
Committee to constructively explore the specificities of the proposal inter alia  the issue of potential 
products to be covered. 
 
6.21 The Chairman  thanked those delegations for their stat ements, questions and clarifications, and 
encouraged the EC to provide su fficient information to clarify and respond to questions posed and 
with its assurances of not rolling back on the commitments under the ITA.  
 6.22 The representative of the European Communities
 thanked all the delegations which took the 
floor and for their close examination and consid eration of the proposal, as well as their questions 
which showed that they were interested in having  a number of features addressed. In his responses to 
the questions, the EC delegate said that it would be very important for them to provide clarifications 
and answers. However, in cases where answers might  not be possible they would explain why. He 
said that he was encouraged by some of the quest ions in view of the level of engagement which 
actually looked like a pre-negotiation. On the preci se questions posed, on what was its linkage with 
the NAMA proposals on NTBs and the electronic sector al, he indicated that the new proposal would 
be a new sectoral initiative under the NAMA.  He felt that on NTBs, good work took place and would be resumed shortly.  He said that the two proposals on NTBs under the NGMA by the EC and US 
respectively were considerably overlapping, an d the EC hoped actually these proposals on NTBs 
covering all electronic products should normally addr ess the main issues concerning IT products.  He 
said that the EC was still examining issues brought to their attention by their own industry and 
looking to see whether the current NTB proposal a nd its emerging text could properly address their 
concerns. In this respect, the EC would like to let the work proceed and  advance as quickly as it 
could be under the NGMA, and enga ge on this thoroughly. He also indicated that the EC might come 
back with a number of additional suggestions, an d did not want obviously to have any kind of 
interruption of this work, and ther efore, their assumption would be that the overwhelming majority of 
the concerns under the ITA should be addressed in th e NGMA context.  He just wanted to be very 
concrete in that respect, and at this stage there wa s no need to open a parallel process.  He stated that 
the proposal had been made before the resumption of  the work on NTBs in the NGMA, and that was G/IT/M/50 
Page 16 
 
 
  why they could only welcome the resumption of the wo rk and were ready to let this path to take pre-
eminence.  
 6.23 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that on the link of sectoral initiatives 
and how it related with the proposal for electroni c sectoral, the EC's views were well-known in the 
NAMA context, and thus, there was no need to repeat  them.  He said that the only thing they could 
mention was that if the participants talked about  the expansion of the coverage of the ITA, and 
certainly they would be making inroads into products  that were considered as consumer electronics. In 
his view, it might be unavoidable to go in that di rection and the question would be how far could the 
Participants go, and at this stage, it would not be possible to advance.  He indicated what could be 
seen already at the moment was that the EC was not  envisaging certainly some thing like inclusion of 
the whole of Chapter 85 under the ITA.  He did not think this was on the table, however, a debate was 
taking place in the context of NGMA more generally and there were other sectoral initiatives made in 
the early stages of the NAMA discu ssions for the coverage of products  and sectors, and within an 
overall package including other sectors of interest propo sed by the US.  He said that the EC would not 
rule them out, and nevertheless, this was something being discussed in a different forum in the context 
of NGMA.   
6.24 The representative of the European Communities
 said that on the question of products 
covered by the dispute settlement case, the key in an y decision to start a review could be to make 
clear that this would be without prejudice to th e outcome of the panel and the outcome of all the 
procedures that normally took place in that regard.  Th e participants would have to find ways to make 
sure that the positions of the parties were not a ffected on which the EC would have to agree to 
disagree for the purposes of a review because if the EC did not do that, simply it would not be 
possible to proceed, or to move any further. Some pa rticipants held the view that some products were 
already covered by the ITA, others had another view .  The participants had gone through this at some 
length in the Committee and the decision has now b een passed on to another body for adjudication. 
Therefore, the participants should let that bod y do its work and as far as this Committee was 
concerned, was to carry out this exercise and puttin g those products in square brackets.  He accepted 
that the Committee was not negotiating on the inclus ion as other participants thought all products 
were included in the coverage of the ITA, thus, le t the matter be sorted out somewhere else. In any 
case, the EC expected that in th e context of the negotiations, it would be possible to work on an 
updated list of products which also would clarif y the product coverage. He said that once the 
definition was done, all those aspects could also be worked out and would pave way for a solution to 
the issue raised by the pa rties that initiated the dispute settlement case. He stated that it was clear that 
any review would hardly be useful if at the same time a dispute was still going on and it would be 
hard to imagine if the issues under dispute were not solved.    
6.25 The representative of the European Communities
 further said that with regard to the other 
aspects, such as timing, it would never be too late, and as time passes by, his concern was that instead of things becoming easier, they might become more  difficult.  He stated that on the question of 
whether an update was necessary, some participants indicated that the current ITA was not inadequate 
and able to solve all the outstanding problems, but in  the EC's view it was  actually not. The EC felt 
that as time passed by, the issues that had led to three disputes actually might become bigger rather 
than smaller and this would complicate matters  and the potential for the Agreement might not 
decrease but actually increase and result in new problems in the future. This is what the EC would like 
to avoid and that was why the EC was making a genui ne offer so that Participants could try to sit 
down and address those matters in a more overall a nd comprehensive way. Other matters would be 
S&D treatment for developing countries.  The EC w as not asking to carry out a comprehensive review 
of the ITA but only to clarify and expand the covera ge, and address the issue of NTBs.  He said that 
the EC would be open and ready to discuss and look into any proposals on the table.  The EC would also be willing to look into the questions of tim e-frame of the initiative. If there would be an 
agreement and the Committee could proceed on a review , the EC's idea would be to try and deal with  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 17 
 
 
  those problems as quickly as possible. Although it would depend on the Membership, the EC's 
timeframe would be ideally some time aiming at the end of next year to come with a conclusion with 
12 months to go over the proposals and then to see whether the Participants could accomplish the 
objective.  
 
6.26 The representative of the European Communities  stated that on the question of the different 
membership between the ITA and DDA, the EC took the point in so far as there would be progress 
achieved in the NGMA context and they would let this  path go and take pre-eminence.  For the NTBs 
as well as other aspects mentioned by other Participan ts, the EC would take the same view so the 
conclusion would be applicable to all ITA Participants by definition which were also Members of the 
WTO.   
6.27 The representative of the European Communities
, in response to the question of what sort of 
mechanism would be required for the review, stated that for the moment, they did not have a precise 
proposal and they could make a proposal if there would be an agreement for a review.  They would 
consider it positively and would need the views of other participants.   
 6.28 The representative of the European Communities
, on the question of classification, said that 
probably the best way would be achieved by a better definition of the products. He indicated that he 
would not like to elaborate much at this stage but the EC could come on this in due course with 
necessary proposals.  He referred to the question wh ether it would be a new sectoral and the reply was 
it would clearly not be. He pointed out that this w as a stand-alone initiative, the ITA is a particular 
agreement, and the problems raised under the ITA should be addressed on their own merits. As to 
what was the link with the DDA in that respect, he said that it would depend on how much progress 
would be achieved in each of the  two forums a nd how quickly. For instance, if the EC saw the 
necessary momentum under the DDA that could be u sed for advancing progress for the review under 
the ITA, the EC, of course, would welcome it but al so this process could take place regardless of the 
progress achieved in the context of the DDA.  He said that the EC was ready to work pragmatically on  
what was going to be the most effective solution.  He said that these were the  responses to the 
questions that the EC could provide replies; but there were some issues on which the EC could not 
provide a reply, in particular, ques tions regarding the list of products.  In EC's view this was part of 
the end of the negotiations and the EC could not, be fore even agreeing to start the negotiations, give 
any kind of list of products.  However, the EC woul d be most willing to share that with others in 
making proposals if the Membership would agree on the launch of the review. He further indicated 
that the EC might have many other proposals to make. What the EC was doing was basically offering 
an alternative way to deal with problems that were raised. Thus, it was an offer and up to Participants 
to consider what were the alternatives.   
6.29 The representative of the European Communities
 noted that some delegates had stressed that 
it was premature to start formal negotiations. He said th at the EC agreed with that and did not think it 
could be achieved in one day, and however, with one exception, they had not heard views against the 
proposal; and which meant that the Committee could start a process to see whether the Participants 
could agree on parameters to be deci ded upon later on for the start of th e review. In this regard, he had 
neither heard any view against this idea.  He said that  he did not get any reply to the questions that he 
had posed, in particular, whether there would be a need for an update. He would like to hear whether 
or not the Participants thought that everything was going correctly or simply things could continue as 
they were at the moment.   
 6.30 The representative of the European Communities
 said that he had not heard anything about 
alternatives regarding the process, and if the alte rnatives were simply continuing as they were 
proceeding at the moment, the EC would be happy with that. He highlighted that the EC was the 
biggest market in the world for IT products, if th e Committee would engage in  this process and others 
would also accept engage in this process, the Par ticipants could contribute positively which would be G/IT/M/50 
Page 18 
 
 
  for the benefit of everyone.  If it seemed that the preference was to continue as from now and it didn't 
mean simply that it would equal maybe better, mayb e worse, the EC didn't know that and it would be 
up to the Participants to consider this and then  to decide, and therefore, the decision that the 
Membership took obviously would be the best. He sai d that he would still like to know whether there 
were any alternatives proposed on the question of the process. Since he didn't hear any view against 
that, he looked forward to the Chair's conclusion. 
 
6.31 The Chairman  thanked the EC representative for his responses to many of the questions raised 
and also for his frankness. He stated that it coul d be fairly said that the Committee had a very 
important first round of discussions, questions and cl arifications. He thought that Participants had 
heard that there was a sense of a very good level of engagement on the proposal. He had not heard 
that Participants were ready at this stage to engage  in a negotiation. He also had not heard a kind of 
rejection to the idea that some of the issues that were raised were pe rtinent to the moment that they 
were going through in terms of the ITA itself and in  parallel also the negotiations within the context 
of DDA. He reminded Participants of the importa nt principles that were underlined through the 
discussion that no participant would like to see a ro ll-back on current commitm ents, so this was an 
important point to underline. This should be a pa rticipant-driven process. It should be driven by 
Participants' contribution, their e ngagement, and that it would be also  based on Participants' proposal. 
He further stated that after hearing the proposal  from the EC, and comments and responses from other 
participants, the Chair's role in all of this would be that of a facilitator. He said that he had tried his 
best to facilitate this process and he sought par ticipants' indulgence in also giving him indication on 
how he could facilitate this process as the Participants  moved forward. He said that the EC ended by 
asking an important question which was that the sense they had was that Participants had not rejected 
this and that he could see ways on how to start moving the process forward. He asked this question 
again to the Participants if there was a sense that they could engage in a formal way and see how they 
could start the process to discuss the issues that coul d be involved in this process and then that would 
lead the Participants at a later st age to see if they had enough elements to engage further in such a 
process. He said that he was just asking this question by way of facilitating the possibility of 
discussion but also seeking participants' advice and th oughts on that. He said that they had listened to 
all the concerns and questions, and to the overlaps that the Committee had with the DDA, with 
sectorals and NTBs. There was a sense that the Committee had covered many of the issues and maybe it was time to make a learned conc lusion on this item of the agenda. 
 
6.32 The representative of the United States
 thanked the EC for providing some of the answers to 
the questions. He said that at this point, his delegation was neither opposing nor supporting the 
proposal. They would still need some clarificati ons on the actual specific mechanisms being proposed 
by the EC. They would probably recommend getting to the point that the EC was saying despite from the specific answer the current ITA is not able to solve these problems. They were very interested in 
that view and in finding out what actual mechanis ms the EC were proposing? Was the EC proposing 
to use the same mechanis m in the ITA? Was the EC proposing to  renegotiate the Agreement? Or was 
the EC proposing a new Agreement on IT products? He  felt that that was part of the core question of 
the EC's proposal. But, he was still not very clear on what the answer was so at this point, his 
delegation would recommend to informally continue  raising questions about the EC proposal and 
leave this for the next meeting.  
 6.33  The representative of Japan
 thanked the EC for providing very detailed answers to their 
questions and shared the position of the US. He stated that Japan would need further 
information/clarifications from the EC before an y negotiation or even informal consultations to 
discuss how to start the process as his authorities were not yet sure what it could be the context of the 
process. He asked the Chair take note that Jap an still had deep concerns and unclearness. 
 6.34 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said that at this stage his authorities did not want to start 
the negotiations or consultations on this issue.  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 19 
 
 
  6.35  The representative of the European Communities  wanted to come back to the US's issue 
which he thought was a fair one. He admitted that he had not sufficiently responded in detail at the 
beginning, to the question on what would be the fina l product for a successful review. In other words, 
would there be an amendment to the ITA, or a ne w ITA.  He said that it was premature to foresee 
exactly what legal form the review would result into. However, he identified, for instance, that the list 
of products could be expanded. In his view, this was an area that could be advanced. When it came to 
NTBs, he stated that taking into account of the necessary and possible results from the NAMA 
negotiations on NTBs in electronics, it could be im agined that some form of understanding or an 
agreement on NTBs could be appended to the exis ting ITA. In dealing with questions for future 
technological evolution, his delegation could thi nk about an understanding on interpretation which 
was an area where further work would be needed. Nevertheless, he admitted that it was simply not 
possible at this stage to provide a very precise a nd definitive response as this would normally become 
clear when such process comes into  existence. If no such process exists to address those questions, 
they would, by definition, never be answered. As in  any negotiation, the inputs by the participants 
would be critical.  With regard to the questions rai sed which were of fundamental concern, the EC did 
not know the results. If the EC already knew the resu lts, there would be no need to have negotiations 
at all. Thus, more detailed clarifications on th is and better understandings could be provided if the 
consultations proposed are conducted,  and only at that stage can the necessary level of clarification 
and comfort be provided and only then the delegations  could have the necessary elements to decide in 
their capitals.  
6.36 The representative of Singapore
, on behalf of ASEAN, expressed their sincere thanks to the 
EC for the very detailed responses to many of thei r questions. He wondered whether the EC would be 
able to supply its responses in writing. He said th at they took the EC's proposal and feedback very 
seriously and wanted to continue their discussions in ternally back in their capitals before deciding on 
how to proceed.  The real question was how to identi fy where the exact starting point would be before 
embarking on this process.  
 6.37 The Chairman
 said that he received the questions from Singapore. He asked whether 
everybody had received them. He stated that it woul d be important to circulate the questions to the 
participants and the EC. This would not only enab le the EC answer directly some of Singapore's 
questions but also clarify and put in writing if they see that this is opportune for the rest of the 
Membership with the extensive clarif ication that they provided earlier. 
 6.38 The representative of Singapore
 indicated that they would provide these questions to the EC 
in writing and also circulate them as a JOB documen t so that every participant would have access to 
these questions. He clarified that they were not sugg esting to negotiate but just wanted to be very 
certain of the exact scope of the review before  making a decision on whether to negotiate or not. 
 
6.39 The Chairman  suggested that in light of the interventions, the EC should consult further 
bilaterally with those delegations having concerns about the proposed  process, and explain to them the 
purpose of its proposal. He said that as participants were still seeking further clarification and  more 
time would be needed, he would only be ready to  engage the Committee on the EC proposal when he 
got an indication that everybody was comfortable with it. Thus, he would be in close contact with 
delegations that raised further questions on th e proposal, and when these questions have been 
satisfactorily addressed, the Committee could move the process forward. He said that so far there has  
not been full consensus on how to define the pr ocess put forward by the EC, and it was important to 
continue the engagement and see whether it would be  feasible in the coming weeks. He stated that 
once he got indication of a consensus, he would de finitely convene an informal meeting with the 
participants on how to proceed with the EC proposal in the Committee.  
 6.40 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that one element that could be helpful 
was whether the Committee could aim tentatively to try to have an understanding of whether or not G/IT/M/50 
Page 20 
 
 
  this process was going to move ahead or not, within a relatively short period of time. That would be 
quite useful because this had implication on the work  that the EC might need to do on whether or not 
to make further proposals or come up with an id ea on whether the Committee needed to continue or 
simply stop this process. The same for other delega tions that may be in a similar situation because 
they might need to know where this process is going. Tentatively, the EC could say something 
sometime beginning of next year so that they would be able to know where things were going. 
 
6.41 The Chairman  stated that what was important was that  this engagement continues somehow if 
the Participants feel there is scope for further engagement. He said what he heard were requests 
seeking for further clarification and Participants need ed to go back to their capitals or industries on 
some of these issues.  He hoped the process, ta king into account the activities of the DDA, might 
resume again during the coming weeks before the end of the year or the beginning of 2009. He 
expected that by the end of the year, Participants could somehow get an indication on whether they 
should pursue this avenue or just continue the normal work of the committee.  He suggested the 
Committee take note of statements made. 
 
6.42 It was so agreed . 
 
7. New Participants  
7.1 The Chairman  turned to the issue of new particip ants and informed the Committee that on 
14 October 2008, a communication was received from the delegation of Peru, indicating its 
Government's intention to become a participant to the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information 
Technology Products, and requesting the Secretariat to verify its draft ITA schedule.  The Secretariat, 
at the request of the Peruvian delegation, carried out the electronic verification of Peru's draft ITA 
schedule which showed no discrepancies. He said th at in his fax to the ITA Participants dated 
17 October 2008, he informed the Participants that the Peruvian request for becoming a participant to 
the ITA would be considered at to day's meeting and in order to accel erate the process, the verification 
sheet and a hard copy of the Peruvian draft IT A schedule were distributed to delegations on 
17 October 2008.  Thus, he suggested that  the sch edule of Peru would be deemed to be approved 
unless any participant notified the Secretariat of its  objection in writing by 12 November 2008 which 
would be three weeks from the date of circulation of the schedule. The Secretariat, later on, would 
also issue a fax to confirm the participation of Pe ru in the ITA. He asked whether this would be 
agreeable to the Participants. He suggested the Committee take note of his statement.  
 7.2 It was so agreed
.  
 
7.3 The representative of Peru  stated that on 14 October 2008, his delegation communicated 
Peru's decision to accede to the ITA  and be part of an Agreement with 71 Participants, covering 97% 
of world trade in information technology products. He said that his delegation had worked intensively 
with the Secretariat to submit its draft schedul e of commitments for verification and subsequent 
approval by the Participants. As part of its econo mic policy of integration to the world, Peru  
considered that trade liberalisation could be an e ffective instrument for its development. Therefore, 
Peru attached great importance to joining the ITA and would appeal to the Participants for their 
positive consideration of its request so that Peru c ould become a Participant to the Agreement as soon 
as possible.  He thanked the Secretariat staff for thei r hard work in helping and assisting Peru  in the 
final phase of preparing its draft schedule of commitm ents. In line with what the Chairman stated, he 
hoped that the approval would take place on 12 November  with no further obstacles so that Peru could 
soon become a Participant to the ITA. 
 
7.4 The Chairman  thanked the delegation of Peru and look ed forward to welcoming Peru as a full 
Participant upon completion of the procedures.   
  G/IT/M/50 
 Page 21 
 
 
  8. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2008) (G/IT/W/29)   
8.1 The Chairman  introduced the draft annual report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in 
Goods.  He stated that the draft report for 2008 w as circulated in G/IT/W/29 and as a factual summary 
of the work undertaken in the Committee during th e year, which would obviously have to be updated 
to take into account the discussions in the Committee today. 
 
 
8.2 The representative of the European Communities  understood that paragraph 6 of Draft 
Annual Report would be updated to include the conclusions that the Chair had just put forward. 
 
8.3 The representative of the Philippines  said that  in view of the updating of the annual report, 
she supposed the updated report would be circulated to the participants before going to the CTG. 
 
8.4 The Chairman  assured that the updated report would be circulated to the participants before 
its submission to the CTG.   
 
8.5 The draft annual report was approved  with the updates in light of the discussions in the 
Committee meeting today.  
 
9. Other Business 
9.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of "product coverage" continued to be a 
matter under consultation, and encouraged delegations continue their efforts. 
 9.2  The representative of Japan
 referred to his delegation's fo rmal proposal on product coverage 
as contained in document G/IT/W/25, and stated that for several reasons they did not intend to focus 
on its proposal at the meeting but would like to make it clear that Japan would not drop its proposal 
from the Committee's agenda. Japan would like to reserve its right to keep the proposal on the table 
and put it as an agenda item for the next Committee meeting.   10. Date of the next meeting 
10.1 The Chairman
 proposed the Committee to hold its next meeting in the spring of 2009 with the 
exact date to be settled in c onsultation with delegations.   
 
10.2 It was so agreed .   
 
10.3 The meeting was adjourned.  
 
__________