RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/31 
21 October 2005 
 (05-4856) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 AND 23 SEPTEMBER 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (W PDR) held its thirty-first meeting on 20 and 
23 September 2005.  The meeting was chaired by Mr . Peter Govindasamy of Singapore.  The agenda 
for the meeting was contained in Airg ram WTO/AIR/2648, dated 7 September 2005. 
2. The Chairman
 drew attention to the paper by the United States entitled "U.S. Proposal for 
Transparency Disciplines in Domestic Regulation:  Building on Existing International Disciplines and 
Proposals" (JOB(04)/128, dated 15 September 2004), wh ich was not listed in the Airgram.  He said 
that this paper should also appear on the agenda of this meeting, as requested by this delegation. 
3. In order to provide additional gui dance to delegations on the orga nization of this meeting, the 
Chairman circulated, under his own responsibility, an Annotated Agenda, which was contained in 
document JOB(05)/179, dated 14 September 2005, on how  he planned to structure the meeting.  The 
Annotated Agenda suggested that under the it em "Development of Regulatory Disciplines under 
GATS Article VI:4", Members first take up the ne w proposals.  Following this, the Working Party 
would hold informal thematic discussions on a ll proposals under the same agenda item.  The 
Annotated Agenda listed all the proposals which were  being discussed in the Working party under this 
item, including informal Room Documents and ea rlier proposals which no longer appeared on the 
Airgram. 
4. The Chairman, therefore, suggested that unde r item C of the Agenda, after the introduction 
and discussion of the new proposals by Australia and Chinese Taipei, the Working Party turn to 
informal mode for the thematic discussions of a ll proposals tabled thus far by Members under this 
item.  He said that the Working Party would then re vert to formal mode in order to complete the 
remaining part of the Agenda starting with the S ecretariat's Informal Paper on Domestic Regulatory 
Provisions in Free Trade Agreements under item C(V). 
5. Under Other Business, the Chairman raised a poi nt concerning the next steps of the Working 
Party and the work plan before the Hong Kong Mini sterial Conference.  The Chairman suggested that 
the Working Party adopt the agenda for the meeting as amended. 
6. Members agreed to adopt the agenda , as amended. 
A. ADOPTION  OF THE  ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  FOR  TRADE  IN SERVICES 
7. The Chairman  recalled that, as this was the last scheduled formal meeting before the end of 
the year, the Working Party had to approve its Annu al Report to the Council for Trade in Services.  
The Secretariat had circulated a draft for considera tion by the Working Party, which was contained in 
document S/WPDR/W/35. 
                                                      
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/31 
Page 2  
 
8. Some delegations made comments on the draft Annual Report and suggested changes, which 
were incorporated in the text.  The Chairman sugg ested, therefore, that the Working party adopt the 
Annual Report to the Council for Trade in Servi ces incorporating all the changes proposed by 
delegations. 
9. The Working Party adopted
 the Annual Report as amended. 
B. REPORT  FROM  THE  CHAIRMAN  ON INFORMAL  MEETINGS 
10. The Chairman  recalled that since the last formal meet ing held on 22 June 2005, the Working 
Party had met in an informal mode on 6 and 7 September 2005.  On that occasion there was a good first round of thematic discussions on the propo sals made by Members on the development of 
regulatory disciplines under GATS Article VI:4.  The Chairman reported orally to the Working Party 
on the informal discussions and said that he wo uld shortly circulate a more detailed summary 
prepared under his own responsibility as Chairman of  the Working Party (a su mmary of the informal 
discussions held on 6 and 7 September 2005 was la ter circulated as document JOB(05)/221, dated 
6 October 2005).  He invited the Working Party to take note of his report of the informal meetings. 
11. The Working Party took note
. 
C. DEVELOPMENT  OF REGULATORY  DISCIPLINES  UNDER  GATS  ARTICLE  VI:4 
Proposal by Australia on Legal and Engineering Services  
12. As explained in the Annotated Agenda, tho se delegations who had presented new proposals 
were given the opportunity to introduce them formal ly and to receive comments, before the Working 
Party turned to the themat ic discussions in informal mode.  Members were also invited to raise issues 
relating to elements contained in the new propo sals under the relevant items of the thematic 
discussions.  
13. The Chairman  recalled that, at the informal meeting held on 6 and 7 September, the 
delegations of Australia and Chinese Taipei gave  a preliminary introduction of their new proposals 
and received initial comments from Members.  He then gave the floor to the de legation of Australia to 
introduce their proposal on Development of Disciplines on Domestic Regulation for the Legal and 
Engineering Sectors and to react to any comment that had been made by delegations at the last 
informal meeting. 
14. The representative of Australia  recalled that his delegation had participated in, and supported, 
the work of the WPDR over the last year on deve loping GATS Article VI:4 disciplines on a horizontal 
basis.  He noted, however, that notwithstanding th e number of proposals addressing various elements 
of domestic regulation on a horizontal basis, there had been little detectable movement in advancing 
the development of horizontal disciplines to date.  He said that this lack of real progress towards any 
pragmatic outcome for the WPDR on horizontal di sciplines had prompted Australia to propose the 
development of disciplines covering two specific se ctors of interest to them: legal and engineering 
services.  Their proposal was designed both as a stimulus and a fallback for the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Conference.  He noted that that  while Australia was not advocating abandoning 
discussions on developing horizontal disciplines or  prejudging any outcome on horizontal disciplines, 
they proposed that horizontal and sectoral discussions  be undertaken in tandem with a view to each of 
the discussions being enriched by developments in the other. 
15. He pointed out that Members faced a very short timeframe before the forthcoming Hong 
Kong Ministerial Conference and that the existenc e of the agreed Accountancy Disciplines and the 
lack of movement on developing horizontal discip lines suggested that there could be a greater chance 
of reaching agreement on sectoral disciplines.  He argued that this view was reinforced by the fact that S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 3 
 
 
a sectoral approach would provide for a less complex, more targeted and easier domestic consultation process as compared to what an all encompassing horiz ontal approach would demand.  He added that 
while this would facilitate domestic c onsultations for all Members, it woul d be of particular interest to 
developing countries.  It was the view of his dele gation that proposals on sectoral disciplines, such as 
the one tabled by Australia, could also favour the development of both sectoral and horizontal 
disciplines covering separate and appropriate areas.  In  this respect, he pointed out that their sectoral 
proposal showed that it was possible to develop meaningful regulatory disciplines for professional 
services sectors.  He emphasised that the focus of the Australian proposal on the legal and engineering 
sectors was without prejudice to existing proposals as well as to new proposals by Members in other 
areas, sectors or sub-sectors. 
16. He explained that the disciplines they were proposing were based on the framework of the 
Accountancy Disciplines (S/L/64) but also drew heavily on the proposals put forward by Members in the WPDR.  The proposal also took into account the comments received by the Secretariat from international professional organizations, partic ularly the detailed comments received from the 
International Bar Association and the International Un ion of Lawyers.  He said that his authorities had 
also consulted the relevant professional bodies in Au stralia in developing the proposed disciplines. 
17. Describing the proposal, he noted that it include d a preamble, which identified the context of 
domestic regulatory disciplines and emphasised the particular needs and principles of the legal and engineering sectors.  The concepts of ‘limited’ and ‘temporary’ licensing had been introduced to 
better reflect the current trends in internationa l trade and market access requirements of legal and 
engineering service providers.  He noted that, partic ularly in the legal services sector, these concepts 
reflected and matched market access commitments and offers by Members.  The proposals also drew 
on the recommendations in the UNCTAD report en titled "Trade in Services and Development 
Implications" of 20 January 2005, which set out recommendations to WTO Members on how to 
address the interests of developing country Members in the GATS negotiations.  He suggested that of particular interest was the statement in paragraph 25 that "as a means of trade facilitation, limited 
licensing systems for foreign professional service suppliers could be promoted." 
18. In relation to Engineering services, he pointed out  that they had also included the concept of 
using "competency assessment with continuing professional development" as an option for licensing 
in place of the traditional path to obtaining a license by undertaking an examination.  He noted that 
this approach was being progressively adopted by ma ny countries as an appropriate avenue to provide 
access to foreign engineers. 
19. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 noted that many of the elements contained in the 
Australian proposal were similar to elements put forward by other delegations in the proposals on 
horizontal disciplines.  He wondered, therefore, in what respect the proposal contained elements, 
which were specific to the legal and engineering sect ors.  Regarding the concept of limited licensing 
contained in the proposal, he said that this relate d to how a government intended to open a sector to 
competition and, therefore, touched upon aspects of  both market access and domestic regulation.  In 
this respect, he recalled that the Working Party could only address issues relating to domestic 
regulation.  Regarding the complexity of a sectoral versus horizontal work, he noted that any possible 
sectoral disciplines would have to reflect a balance of interest among Members and that in order to 
achieve that balance disciplines would probably need to be developed for many sectors.  He pointed 
out that this was highlighted in the Note by th e Secretariat on Domestic Regulatory Provisions in 
Economic Integration Agreements (E IAs), which showed that while vi rtually all EIAs had horizontal 
provisions on domestic regulation, the sector covera ge of specific disciplines varied among different 
EIAs.  He added that the fact that so many  EIAs contained horizont al provisions on domestic 
regulation showed that it was possible to conduct do mestic consultations on horizontal disciplines and 
on that basis to produce a result. S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 4  
 
20. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation was not as negative 
as Australia on the feasibility of horizontal disciplines.  He noted that a great proportion of the elements contained in the Australian proposal were of an horizontal nature, but agreed that it was 
important to consider the specificities of these tw o professions, such as the concepts of limited and 
temporary licensing.  He wondered why the de finition of licensing requirement for legal 
(requirements other than qualificati ons) was different than for engineering (including qualification 
requirements).  He said that his delegation had difficulties with the concept of permanent 
establishment referred to in the legal services part of the proposal, insofar as Mode 4 of the GATS 
was limited to temporary presence of natural pe rsons.  Regarding the possibility of taking 
examinations through electronic means in the home c ountry, he noted that this did not appear to be 
very realistic and pointed out that it was not prov ided for even in the Eu ropean Union.  On the 
temporary licensing of engineers, he questioned th e issuance of licenses without further assessment or 
examinations even in cases wh ere there was no equivalence.  Finally he wondered whether the 
proposed stages 1 and 2 for the qualif ication of engineers were based  on the Australian system or on 
some international standards. 
21. The representative of New Zealand
 said his delegation had not taken a formal decision at that 
stage on horizontal versus sector specific disciplin es and that the proposal by Australia could be 
considered in parallel to the work on horizontal  disciplines.  Like Hong Kong, China she asked 
Australia to highlight the specificity of the sectoral  elements in their proposal.  On the engineering 
sector, like the European Commun ities, she wondered why licensing requirements also included  
qualification requirements, considering the different  approach adopted for the legal services sector.  
She also wondered whether the proposal took  into account that in some cases professional 
competence or experience could substitute for degr ee level education requirements.  She added that, 
while her delegation was favourable to a competency assessment system, they thought that written work, such as a written examination should be pa rt of a  system of competency assessment. 
22. On legal services the representative from capital sai d that they appreciated the fact that the 
proposal recognized the unique role played by th e legal profession in society, for instance by 
including, among the legitimate policy objectives, th e independence of the profession.  On this he 
wondered what was meant by independence of the pr ofession.  He also found the mutually exclusive 
distinction between licensing and qualification requireme nts in the proposal to be very helpful.  On 
qualification requirements he said that his delega tion was broadly supportive of the concept of 
equivalency.  He asked Australia to clarify how thei r provision on language skil ls would be applied in 
practice. 
23. The representative of Mexico
 agreed with Hong Kong, China that at that stage of the 
negotiations on Article VI:4 disciplines, it was not opportune to introduce a sectoral discussion in the 
Working Party.  Regarding technical standards, he  asked Australia why it had adopted in the paper 
such a broad definition of technical standards, so as to cover also ethical and professional rules, which 
in their view were more concerned with qualifica tion requirements.  He agreed that the two sectors 
chosen were good examples of sector specific ities which could be addressed once horizontal 
disciplines had been developed. 
24. The representative of Thailand  asked Australia to clarify whet her they intended their proposal 
to be a draft legal text of sectoral disciplines.  She also noted that it contained many similarities with the horizontal proposals, including the proposal th ey had co-sponsored on qualification requirements 
and procedures.  She also noted that Australia ha d not included any sector specific disciplines on legal 
and engineering services in some economic integr ation agreements in which they participated, 
perhaps, she argued, because major trade concerns  were addressed by horizontal disciplines under 
such agreements. 
25. The representative of Japan
 noted that most of the elements in the Australian proposal 
overlapped with the various proposals on horizontal disciplines.  Therefore, in order to make the most S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 5 
 
 
of limited time available before the Ministerial C onference, she suggested that the Working Party 
focus on developing horizontal disciplines rather than  focusing on a particular sector.  She argued that 
if there were specific elements in a particular sector, which were not covered by horizontal disciplines, it would be possible to discuss sector  specific disciplines once horizontal disciplines had 
been established. 
26. The representative of Argentina
 suggested that Australia was being optimistic if they believed 
that sector specific disciplines would compensate for th e lack of advancement in the horizontal work.  
In fact, while in principle it was easier to cons ult with one profession, th e difficulty consisted in 
deciding in which sectors the specific disciplines should be developed.  He said that it was clear that 
the two sectors addressed in the proposal were sector s of interest to Australia and asked Australia how 
many sectors they believed it would be possibl e to address before the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference. 
27. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that in their view sector specific and horizontal 
disciplines were complementary and not mutually ex clusive.  Regarding the proposals by Australia on 
legal and engineering services, she asked how it  would be assessed whether the documents required 
for a license were "strictly necessary" and wh y Australia thought that language requirements 
constituted barriers to trade, if they were imposed fo r a legitimate objective.  On technical standards, 
she welcomed the fact that in the definition propos ed by Australia technical standards referred not 
only to the service itself, but also to the way a servi ce was provided, such as ethical rules and rules of 
professional conduct.  However, since these type of rules were often developed by private service 
associations, this raised the issue of whether technical standards should cover only mandatory 
standards or also voluntary ones.  On engineeri ng services she expressed concern about the temporary 
licensing system and asked Australia to share its practical experiences on this system.  She wondered 
how such a system could be implemented in practice. 
28. The representative of Pakistan  noted that the Australian proposal on legal and engineering 
services had several common elements with the proposal they were co-sponsoring on qualification 
requirements and procedures.  She asked why for the legal services sector qualification requirements 
and procedures depended on full or limited licensing sy stems and why such a distinction did not apply 
to the engineering sector.  She also wondered wh y language fluency requirements were addressed by 
the legal services paper and not by the engineeri ng one.  Finally she asked why Australia had not 
referred to any special and differential (S&D) treatm ent for developing countries in their proposals. 
29. The representative of India  noted that most of the elements  in the Australian paper were the 
same that were addressed in the hori zontal proposals on the table.  He poi nted out that at this stage to 
discuss the same issues in the cont ext of a specific sector would not possibly facilitate an outcome for 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. 
30. The representative of Switzerland  agreed with previous delegations that the majority of 
elements in the Australian proposal were the sa me raised in the horizontal proposals.  As a 
consequence it was important to ascertain if there we re any sector specific elements in the proposals.  
He said that his delegation found the content of this proposal to be very interesting, although they did 
not see much value added in a sector specific appro ach at this stage as opposed to the horizontal 
approach.  Regarding the preamble of the proposal , he noted that in their view the mandate of 
Article VI:4 did not refer to an open list of sector s to which disciplines may apply, but rather to 
disciplines to be applied to all sectors.  He e xpressed appreciation for the reference to common 
principles in the last paragraph of the preamble  and asked Australia whether they thought common 
principles could be applied to all sectors.  On th e introduction of ethical rules in the proposal, he said 
that ethical rules played an important role in many  other services sectors.  Regarding the transparency 
chapter of the paper he said that his delegation broadly supported the elements proposed and noted 
that to a great extent those elements had also been  included in horizontal proposals.  He shared the 
concerns expressed by other delegations on the limite d licensing system as outlined in paragraph 11 of S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 6  
 
the Australian proposal.  He added that his dele gation would have difficulties with the provision on 
frequency of examinations and asked Australia if they would also have a reference on conformity 
assessment in the technical standards section of their papers. 
31. The representative of Colombia
 noted that the proposal by Australia on legal and engineering 
services was more detailed and far reaching than the Accountancy Disciplines and that the adoption of  
similar disciplines would require a radical change in the regulation of lawyers and engineers in 
Colombia, as they had no provisions on temporary licensing nor on equivalency.  He suggested that 
Members consider S&D provisions for developing countries on such elements. 
32. The representative of China  noted that the negotiations on Article VI:4 of the GATS were not 
moving as fast as expected and that part of the diffi culties were related to the question of definitions.  
He noted that considering the limited time availabl e, it would have been better at that stage to 
continue work on horizontal disciplines rather than starting sectoral discussions. 
33. The representative of the United States  said that the proposals from Australia represented a 
constructive and practical attempt to move the work of the WPDR forward.  He  shared the point made 
by Australia that while some provisions relating to transparency and procedures could be adopted 
realistically on an horizontal basis, other disciplines could only be meaningful if tailored to the 
specific needs of a given sector.  His delegation also  appreciated the fact that Australia had been 
inclusive in adopting in their proposal many of th e elements that had been put forward by other 
Members in horizontal proposals.  He said that the Australian paper illustrated very clearly how a sectoral approach improved significantly on the attempt to deal with licensing and qualification on an horizontal basis.  In fact, a sectoral approach provided greater detail and a more limited scope for the 
proposed disciplines, thus allowing for the identific ation of elements of crucial importance to the 
sector and for effective domestic consultations.  Rega rding the mandate of Article VI:4, he said that 
his delegation had a different unders tanding from Switzerland, in that they did not see anything in 
Article VI:4 indicating that disciplines had to be adop ted for all sectors.  In their view Article VI:4 
indicated that Members could develop disciplines wher e they found them to be necessary.  He also 
pointed out that many elements proposed for the two sectors chosen by Australia would be 
meaningless on an horizontal basis. 
34. The representative of Australia
 replied to the comments and ques tions made by delegations on 
the paper on legal and engineering services.  He started by saying that many elements in their proposal indeed resembled the horizontal proposals on the table.  He explained that in drafting their proposal they had used as much as possible the elem ents put forward by other Members in horizontal 
proposals, as they intended to focus first on these two sectors and then agree also horizontal 
disciplines on that basis.  On the questions relati ng to the limited licensing system for lawyers, he 
responded that the disciplines would not apply in the absence of such a system, and that the decision to have or not a limited licensing system was c oncerned with market access and not with domestic 
regulation.  He said that his delegation welc omed proposals by Members on other sectors and 
undertook to consult and respond timely on any sector specific proposal.  On the horizontal approach 
he said that they would continue to consult,  but considered this a rather difficult task. 
35. He said that licensing requirements in the e ngineering paper also covered elements of 
qualification requirements in the form of conti nued professional development (CPD) programs, which 
on the other hand did not exist for legal services.  He pointed out that there was an emerging 
international trend toward CPD in a large range of  professional sectors and that, therefore, this was 
not simply based on the Australian system.  On the issue of temporary licensing for engineers, he 
replied to questions that they were proposing a temporary licensing system associated to individual 
projects rather than any particular timeframe as an alternative to imposing residency requirements 
(necessary for consumer protection, liability and accountability for action).  He noted that, as for limited licensing, the decision to adopt a temporary licensing system was concerned with market 
access, but argued that, should a Member decide to adopt such a system, the disciplines they were S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 7 
 
 
proposing would prove very useful.  He added that in their view an effective temporary licensing system should at least have the option of adop ting a presumption of acceptance of home licensing. 
36. He noted that the disciplines they were proposing for these two sectors were more detailed 
and advanced than the Accountancy Disciplines, whic h, having been agreed in 1998, were considered 
by their industry as no longer relevant.  In particular he noted that the Accountancy Disciplines did 
not take account of the emergence of electronic means of communication.  On electronic exams he 
recognized that this was an emerging area, which ne eded to be considered as a possibility but that it 
could not possibly be imposed as a mandatory element, especially where flexibility was being considered for regulatory authorities of developing  countries.  Regarding the reference to the 
independence of the profession in the legal services pa per, he said that this was not meant to address 
issues concerned with self-regulati on.  On the issue of language skills for qualification requirements, 
he said that the proposals recognized that there were  legitimate policy objective that could require a 
level of language fluency to conduct an examinati on.  He said that his delegation was open to discuss 
how professional competence or experience could subs titute for degree level education requirements, 
as suggested by one delegation.  He agreed that th ere were ways to facilitate temporary entry other 
than temporary licensing, but said that in the engin eering sector this appeared to be a particularly 
effective system. 
37. He noted that in engineering services regulator y authorities were particularly concerned with 
ensuring that an appropriate standard of service w as provided and that individual engineers could be 
held accountable; hence their suggestion that temp orary licensing system would be better suited to 
facilitate this rather than relying on the temporarin ess of Mode 4 visas without any licensing system.  
On technical standards, he said that his delega tion thought that ethical and professional conduct rules 
in the legal services sector should fit within the defi nition of technical standards in services, but they 
were open to discuss with others the issue of definiti on of technical standards.  He confirmed that the 
text they had put forward was a formal proposal a nd should be considered as  a proposed legal text.  
He concluded by responding to one  delegation who had raised this i ssue, that Australia had consulted 
on and included sector specific as well as horizontal disciplines on domestic regulation in a number of 
economic integration agreemen ts to which it was part. 
38. He agreed with those Members who had poi nted out that licensing and qualification 
requirements tended to have a sectoral nature, wh ile licensing and qualification procedures had a more 
horizontal nature.  He repeated that  his delegation's priority was for the WPDR to produce some result 
for the forthcoming Ministerial Conference, but  continued to see difficulties with horizontal 
consultation in the limited timeframe available. 
Proposal by Chinese Taipei on Telecommunication Services
 
39. The Chairman  drew attention to the fact that since the circulation of the Airgram, the proposal 
by Chinese Taipei, which was originally contained in a Room Document had been converted into a 
Working Document (S/WPDR/W/36, dated 14 Septembe r 2005) upon request by this delegation.  He 
gave the floor to the delegation of Chinese Taip ei to introduce their proposal on Transparency 
Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Telecomm unications Sector and to react to any comment 
that had been made by delegations at the last informal meeting. 
40. The representative of Chinese Taipei  introduced their paper on Tr ansparency Disciplines on 
Domestic Regulation in the Telecommunications Sector, explaining the reasons why they had chosen this particular sector.  He said they had chosen this sector firstly because it was an important element 
of the GATS negotiations, considering the crucial role that it plays in developing the infrastructure for 
economic growth, and secondly because the liberalizati on of this sector produced a vast array of 
additional, positive spill over eff ects into the economy as a whole. S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 8  
 
41. He pointed out that the telecommunication services market had special characteristics which 
required a higher degree of transparency on domestic regulation to ensure that the full benefits of 
market access were to achieved in this sector.  In this context, his delegation was proposing to discuss 
transparency disciplines that app lied to measures affecting trade in telecommunications services, 
including those relating to licensing requirement s and procedures, qualification requirements and 
procedures, and technical standards.  He pointed out that the specific elements of transparency 
disciplines that should be included were inter alia :  prior consultation and public comment 
procedures; enquiry points;  publication;  and the transparent administration of universal services obligations.  He concluded by stating that his de legation believed that the horizontal and sectoral 
approaches to developing transparency disciplines  could be complementary, and needed not be 
mutually exclusive. 
42. The representative of Korea
 asked Chinese Taipei to clarify whether the requirement for 
comments, consultations and giving consideration to comments in paragraph 8 was of a binding or 
non-binding nature.  He also asked if Chinese Taipei  was also proposing intervals before publication 
and notification. 
43. The representative of India  said that his delegation did not see any particular need to develop 
transparency disciplines for the telecommunication sector , as disciplines of this type already existed in 
the Reference Paper.  He also pointed out that in the view of his delegation the paper by Chinese 
Taipei went well beyond the mandate of Article VI:4, in that it attempted to deepen the GATS 
transparency provisions, while here Members were addressing transparency only within the mandate 
of Article VI:4.  He voiced concerns about the pr ovisions on prior consulta tions and public comments 
in part three of the paper, which his delegation fou nd very difficult to accept.  Moreover, he noted that 
the paper included many elements from the Telecomm unications Reference Pape r, which he said were 
market access issues not covered by Article VI:4. 
44. The representative of Chile , commenting on both papers from Australia and Chinese Taipei 
said that, while there were many common elements between the two sectoral proposals and the 
horizontal proposals on the table, her delegation belie ved that there should a sequencing of horizontal 
and sectoral disciplines, whereby Members should focus first on horizontal disciplines and then 
consider any necessary sector speci fic disciplines.  She added that while the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference represented an important stepping stone, it should not have been considered as a deadline 
for the work of the WPDR and that it was prematur e to take a decision on horizontal versus sectoral 
disciplines at that stage.  She ag reed that the proposal by Chinese Taipei exceeded the mandate of 
Article VI:4, in that it related to Article III of th e GATS and asked the delegation of Chinese Taipei to 
clarify which elements of the proposal related to the Article VI:4 mandate. 
45. The representative of Hong Kong, China  asked Chinese Taipei to clarify what was the 
relationship between the elements in their proposals and the Reference Paper on Basic 
telecommunication Services and the Annex on Telecommunications. 
46. The representative of Chinese Taipei  replied to the comments and questions raised by stating 
that their proposal was in line with the mandate of  Article VI:4 of the GATS and with the mandate of 
the WPDR.  He added that while it was not meant to overlap with Articles III and IX of the GATS, the Reference Paper or the Annex on Telecomm unications, it intended to complement existing 
disciplines.  He said that in the view of his de legation these transparency disciplines were essential 
and necessary elements for licensing, qualifications requirements and technical standards affecting 
telecommunications operators.  Regarding the qu estion from one delegation on the requirements of 
comments, consultations and giving consideration to  comments in paragraph 8 of their proposal, he 
replied that such requirements were binding. 
47. The representative of the United States
 said that a sectoral approach building on broad 
horizontal transparency disciplines was consistent w ith their position.  He said thatm while they were S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 9 
 
 
still consulting, they d received a generally positive response from their regulators on the proposal by 
Chinese Taipei.  Regarding the Reference Paper, he  noted that while many of the proposals on the 
table had a certain amount of overlap – for instan ce many elements discussed had implications for 
market access – it was important to avoid any legal uncertainty as the negotiations proceeded.  
Therefore, while they shared some concerns on th e relationship of the future disciplines with the 
Reference Paper, he said that such issues coul d be discussed and worked out as the negotiations 
moved forward.  On market access, he noted that  the proposals from Australia and Chinese Taipei, as 
with all the horizontal proposals on the tables, ai med at enhancing market access, not at engaging in 
market access negotiations.  On a more general poi nt, he said that his delegation wondered whether 
some elements in the proposals, which related to  movement of natural pe rsons or to professional 
services, could be applied horizontally without crea ting legal uncertainty.  For this reason he argued 
that those elements that were specific to sectors should be restricted in th eir application to such 
sectors. 
Thematic Discussions on the Development of Disciplines under Article VI:4 of the GATS   
48. The Chairman suggested that the Working Party turn to informal mode in order to hold a 
second round of thematic discussions  on all proposals submitted by Members in the Working Party on 
the development of regulatory disciplines under GATS Ar ticle VI:4.  He suggested that, as in the first 
round, the discussions should be structured accord ing to the following non-exhaustive list of items: 
Licensing Requirements; Licensing Procedures; Qualification Requirements; Qualification 
Procedures; Technical Standards; Transparency ; Objectives; Scope; Application; Definitions; 
Development Considerations (inc luding S&D and Technical Assistan ce) with regards to the above 
items. 
49. He reiterated that the sequence in which the items appeared did not reflect any order of 
priority and was without prejudice to individual positi ons of Members.  He noted, moreover, that as 
seen in the first round of discussions, some of  the themes identified could be discussed as self 
standing items as well as part of the discussions on ot her listed items.  In other words, the discussions 
on the various items needed not be mutually exclusive. 
50. As for the first round of thematic informal di scussions (JOB(05)/221, dated 6 October 2005), 
after this meeting the Chairman circulated a summary of the informal discussions under his own 
responsibility.  This summary was contained in  document JOB(05)/223, dated 7 October 2005. 
Secretariat's Note on Domestic Regulatory Pr ovisions in Economic Integration Agreements  
51. At the end of the informal thematic discussions, the Chairman  suggested that the Working 
Party revert to formal mode to complete the agenda  for this meeting.  He recalled that the next sub-
item on the agenda was C(V), concerning the Secretariat's Informal Paper on Domestic Regulatory Provisions in Economic Integration Ag reements.  He reminded delegations  that at the meeting held in 
February 2005, the Working Party had requested that the Secretariat prepare an overview of 
regulatory provisions contained in economic integration agreements (EIAs) covering services, notified 
to the WTO under Article V of the GATS.  In resp onse, the Secretariat had prepared a Note providing 
such overview for all the 28 economic integration agreements notified under Article V of the GATS 
to date.  This Note had been circulated to Members as document JOB(05)/175, dated 14 September 
2005. 
52. The Chairman
 asked the Secretariat to introduce the Note. 
53. A representative of the Secretariat  introduced the Note, noting that an exact correspondence 
between Article VI:4 and domestic regulatory provisi ons in EIAs was to clearly not possible.  He 
pointed out that in preparing this Note, an incl usive approach had been followed, by including the 
relevant provisions in the compilation, even in those cases in which some uncertainty existed as to S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 10  
 
their relevance to the scope of Article VI:4 of th e GATS.  He added that Note attempted to be as 
exhaustive as possible, but that ultimately it was fo r the Members who were parties to the relevant 
EIAs to clarify in the discussions whether a given provision should be included or not and whether it had been correctly characterized. 
54. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 welcomed the Note by the Secretariat and noted that 
domestic regulation provisions in EI As presented interesting patterns for the work under Article VI:4 
of the GATS.  He pointed out that while all EIAs included horizontal disciplines on the Article VI:4 elements, sector specific disciplines did not show a common pattern among the different EIAs.  In the 
view of his delegation, this showed a divergence of interests among Members on sector specific disciplines, which made focusing on horizontal disci plines more efficient and more likely to yield 
results under Article VI:4 of the GATS. 
55. The representative of the United States
 noted that most of the agreements notified to the WTO 
under Article V of the GATS were agreements betw een two parties, while Members in the WPDR 
were addressing the feasibility of horizontal disciplin es for the entire WTO membership.  He said that 
his delegation favoured the development of horizo ntal disciplines in the WPDR, where feasible and 
reasonable, but that the WPDR should also try to identify and separate those elements that could not 
be adopted on an horizontal basis. 
56. Other delegations welcomed the pa per and said that they would like to revert to it at the next 
meeting. 
Secretariat's Note on Examples of Measures to  be addressed by Article VI:4 Disciplines  
57. The Chairman  asked delegations if they had any further comments on the papers on examples 
of measures to be addressed by Article VI:4  disciplines, produced by the Secretariat 
(JOB(02)/20/Rev.10, dated 31 January 2005), Braz il (JOB(04)/169, dated 19 November 2004) and 
Hong Kong, China (JOB(04)/166, dated 19 November  2004).  No delegation intervened under this 
sub-item. 
58. The Chairman recalled that the Secretariat's examples paper had reached its tenth revision, 
enriched by Members' contributions in the discussi ons held in the Working Party in the past few 
years.  He noted, however, that such discussions appeared to have lost momentum in the past few 
meetings, also as a consequence of the intensif ication of the work on the development of the 
Article VI:4 disciplines.  He, therefore, suggested that the Working Party consider suspending specific 
discussions on the examples paper and remove this ite m from the agenda of its next meeting.  He 
added that the examples papers would remain as useful background for the discussions on the 
development of the Article VI:4 disciplines and that  if Members had further examples in the future, 
they would be welcome to circulate them for discussion under the Article VI:4 agenda item. 
59. The representative of China  said that his delegation was still reviewing the latest versions of 
the Secretariat examples paper and that they might want to revert to it at the next meeting.  The Chairman
 said that he would consult with  delegations on the need to revert  to this sub-item at the next 
meeting. 
60. It was so agreed . 
Secretariat's Note on Consultations with In ternational Professional Services Organizations  
61. The Chairman  introduced the Secretariat's paper on Consultations with International 
Professional Services Organizations, which had reached its sixth revision.  He informed delegations 
that the response by International Professional Services Organizations had been mixed with a S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 11 
 
 
significant number of responses still missing.  He th en asked the Secretariat to update the Working 
Party on the most recent responses received. 
62. A representative of the Secretariat  informed the Working Party th at since the last revision of 
the document, one additional response had been recei ved by the International Union of Professions.  
He said that this response was generally positiv e on the Accountancy Disciplines and on the on-going 
work of the WPDR on possible Article VI:4 disciplines, provided policy objectives relevant to the 
professions were duly taken into account. 
63. As for the previous sub-item, the Chairman noted  that the debate on this item had also been 
losing momentum, principally due to the limited responses received thus far from International 
Professional Services Organizations.  He suggested, therefore, that the Secretariat provide those 
organizations, which had thus far failed to r espond, with a time limit for responding to the 
questionnaire or at least provide an indication that th ey intended to respond.  He added that at its next 
meeting the Working Party could ta ke stock of all the responses received with a view to firming up 
the discussions on this item.  If any new responses were received from International Professional Services Organizations in the future, the Secret ariat could update the Working Party accordingly. 
64. It was so agreed
. 
D. DATE  OF NEXT  MEETING 
65. The Chairman  reminded delegations that in his Anno tated Agenda for the 6 and 7 September 
informal meeting (JOB(05)/169), he had suggested th at the Working Party hold a number of informal 
meetings before the forthcoming Sixth Ministerial C onference.  He said that he intended to take up 
this issue under Other Business together with othe r issues relating to the organization of our future 
work. 
66. Regarding the date of the next formal meeting,  he said that the Working Party was embarking 
on an intensive work programme in the run up to the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference and that in 
addition to the dates set aside for informal meetings, if delegations agreed, he wanted to maintain the 
possibility of calling a formal meeting of the Worki ng Party in order to consider its input to the 
Ministerial Conference. 
67. It was so agreed . 
E. OTHER  BUSINESS 
68. Turning to Other Business, the Chairman  made some observations on possible next steps for 
the Working Party and on the organization of work in the period of time leading up to the Sixth Ministerial Conference.  He noted that the Me mber had had good substantive discussions on the 
various negotiating proposals over the past two years.   He recalled also that Members had held two 
rounds of informal discussions on a thematic basi s in September 2005, which had thrown up a host of 
issues and questions.  He suggested, therefore, that at  this stage it would be useful to continue with 
this format of thematic discussions at the next sched uled informal meetings.  He pointed out that this 
would help delegations to identify further issues and questions relevant to the negotiations.  He 
reiterated that, as Members progressed in the negoti ations, they should be more specific in their 
proposals.  He added that it would be helpful if Members could frame the issues and concepts that 
they raised in specific language as this would fo cus discussions and facilitate  domestic consultations. 
69. To advance work before the forthcoming Mini sterial Conference, the Chairman suggested 
that the Working Party meet again in informal m ode on 7 and 21 October and maintained the possibly 
of calling more meetings if needed. S/WPDR/M/31 
Page 12  
 
70. The Chairman invited the Working Party to ta ke note of his statement and undertook to hold 
informal consultations with delegations on possible input by the Working Party to the Sixth Ministerial Conference, in advance of the next scheduled informal meetings. 
71. The Working Party took note
. 
__________