RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/30 
6 September 2005 
 
 (05-3873) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 JUNE 2005 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPD R) held its thirtieth meeting on 22 June 
2005.  The meeting was opened by the outgoing Ch airman, Mr. David Cairns of the United Kingdom 
and continued under the chairmanship of the newl y elected Chairman, Mr. Peter Govindasamy of 
Singapore.  The agenda for the meeting was c ontained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2594/Rev.1, dated 
16 June 2005. 
2. The Chairman
 drew attention to a Communication from the Chairperson, circulated as  
JOB(05)/117, dated 17 June 2005, on how he pl anned to structure this meeting.  In his 
Communication he noted that, since the last formal meeting, the Working Party had met in informal 
mode twice, on 31 March, and 2 May, 2005.  At those meetings, a number of new proposals and other 
papers had been tabled, some of  them informally as room documen ts.  He said that although these 
papers did not appear on the Airgram, they had been listed in JOB(05)/117,  and delegations would 
have an opportunity to discuss them during the meeting. 
3. The Chairman  recalled that at the February mee ting of the Working Party Members had 
agreed that the Secretariat prepare a paper on domestic regulatory provisions in Free Trade 
Agreements.  He said that such work had taken l onger than originally envisaged and that it still 
needed some further work.  He proposed that th e Working Party come back to this item in its 
September meeting. 
4. The Chairman  also recalled that at the last informal  meeting of the Working Party on 2 May 
2005, Members had proposed that the Secretariat draw  up a matrix of proposals submitted thus far, to 
facilitate Members’ awareness and understanding of th e proposals.  This Matrix was not intended to 
be any kind of formal negotiating basis for future wo rk.  The Secretariat had prepared such a Matrix 
and circulated a copy to all Members by e-mail.  He pointed out that this Matrix was essentially a 
compilation of proposals, and did not contain text from other communications from Members which 
were not formal proposals.  The Matrix remained open to amendments incorporating new proposals.  
He suggested that the Secretariat introdu ce the Matrix after agenda item 2(c)(v). 
5. At the same informal meeting, on 2 May 2005,  Members had proposed that the International 
Organisation for Standardization (ISO) be invite d to give a presentation of their work and its 
relevance for the Working Party discussions, particular ly in the area of technical standards.  The 
Chairman suggested that, as an agenda item, Mr. Al an Bryden, the ISO Secretary General, be invited 
to make a presentation following discussions on the matrix. 
6. Members agreed to adopt the agenda , as amended. 
                                                      
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/30 
Page 2  
 
 7. The Chairman
 raised one point under Other Business on behalf of the incoming Chairman 
who had indicated he wanted to have a brief discu ssion, in informal mode, on possible next steps for 
the Working Party.  He then invited any delegati on who wanted to raise points under Other Business 
to take the floor. 
8. The representative of Switzerland said that her de legation wanted to make a brief statement 
under Other Business concerning feedback from one of the informal meetings. 
A. REPORT  FROM  THE  CHAIRMAN  ON INFORMAL  MEETINGS 
9. The Chairman  said he had circulated a report of the two informal meetings held on 31 March 
and 2 May 2005.  Summarizing, the Chairman r ecalled that six papers from delegations were 
discussed at those meetings.  He noted that while differences existe d among the papers, the 
discussions on the papers led to some common themes , including the scope of possible disciplines, the 
application of such disciplines (in particular th e question of federal and sub-federal levels of 
government), definitions, the question of binding obligations versus best endeavour clauses, the 
question of the cost of obligations as opposed to th e benefits of obligations , special and differential 
treatment, and the relevance of other agreements (i n particular the TBT Agreement).  The Chairman 
highlighted those common themes, although he noted  that other themes had also emerged during the 
discussions on the different papers. 
10. The representative of the United States  noted that in the Chairman's summaries of the 
informal meetings held on 31 Marc h and 2 May 2005, the title of the US proposal should be rectified 
by adding the word "transparency" after "horizontal ".  The correct title should read "Proposal by the 
United States (room document): Horizontal Transp arency Disciplines in Domestic Regulation".  
Regarding possible common themes, she noted th at while it was possible to find some common 
themes by reading each paper in isolation, her de legation did not share impression that those common 
themes rose above the individual papers to form a set  of common themes that could be combined in to 
one document or one single thought on how to proceed on domestic regulation.  She finally noted that, 
as Members were entering into a negotiating mode, Members might want to reflect how to better 
coordinate work done in informal and formal meet ings of the Working Party.  While her delegation 
appreciated the summaries of the past informal me etings prepared by the Chairman, she suggested 
that at that stage it would have been useful to have had more detailed summaries to ensure a 
continuous flow of information betw een formal and informal meetings. 
11. The Chairman  invited the Working Party to take note of his report of the informal meetings 
and of the comments made.  His report of those in formal discussion would be attached to the Report 
of the Meeting.  More substantive reports of those meetings would be circulated by the Secretariat to 
Members. 
12. The Working Party took note . 
B. APPOINTMENT  OF THE  NEW  CHAIRPERSON 
13. The Chairman  noted that the appointment of the ne w Chairperson, which should have been 
made at the end of the first meeting of the year had been delayed until this meeting, for procedural 
reasons.  Based on consultations held by the Chai rman of the Council for Trade in Services, it was 
suggested that Peter Govindasamy of Singapore be appointed as the next Chairman of the Working Party.  The Chairman asked if the Work ing Party agreed with this suggestion. 
14. The Working Party so agreed
.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 3 
 
 
 15. The Chairman  invited the new Chairman, Mr. Peter Govindasamy of Singapore to assume the 
Chairmanship of the Working Party.  Before turn ing the chairmanship over to the new Chairman he 
said a few words of farewell to the chairmanship of  the Working Party.  He noted that the Working 
Party had had an intensive and productive year of wo rk and that even more intensive work lay ahead, 
if the Working Party wanted to achieve its goal of  agreeing on domestic regulation disciplines by the 
end of the Round.  He thanked the Secretariat fo r its assistance, Members for their support, and the 
interpreters for their work. 
16. The new Chairman  thanked the outgoing Chairman for the excellent job done during his 
tenure which had gained momentum in the negotia tions under Article VI:4 through submission of 
numerous proposals.  He expressed the wish that such proposals and others to be tabled in the future 
would provide useful resources for the tasks facing the Working Party. 
17. Many delegations intervened throughout the me eting to thank the outgoing Chairman and to 
welcome the new Chairperson. 
C. DEVELOPMENT  OF REGULATORY  DISCIPLINES  UNDER  GATS  ARTICLE  VI:4 
 (i) Discussion of Concepts  Relati ng to the Development of Disciplines 
Transparency Template - Canada’s Revised Horizontal Mode 4 Offer  
18. The Chairman  invited the delegation of Canada  to introduce its new paper entitled 
Communication from Canada: Transparency Template – Canada's Revised Horizontal Mode 4 Offer , 
which had been circulated as document SWPDR/W/33, dated 25 May 2005. 
19. The representative of Canada  noted that the paper presented an outcome rather than a clearly 
delineated process.  As Members' commitments in Mode  4 were not always clear, transparency in this 
area was desirable and necessary.  He  remarked that while the pape r illustrated Canada's undertaking 
to make its Mode 4 commitments more transparent, his delegation hoped that the same type of result 
could be achieved by all other Members based on their example. 
20. The capital based representative sai d that the lack of transparen cy affected the ability of both 
trade negotiators and service providers – particul arly individual service providers and small- and 
medium-sized enterprises – to understand the horizontal Mode 4 commitments in Members' 
schedules.  In its revised offer, Canada had provi ded some background information in the form of a 
template, reproduced in their submission to the Wo rking Party.  She pointed out that Canada's 
proposal was different from, and went beyond, Memb ers' obligations under Article III of the GATS, 
in that it called for the provision of a minimu m amount of information on laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures and guidelines relating sp ecifically to Mode 4 commitments, but not the 
actual laws or regulation themselves.  Canada sugg ested Members cite, in their schedules, relevant 
information sources, so as to direct interested par ties towards the relevant more detailed information, 
but without providing the actual texts of laws or  regulations.  Each Member would provide the 
relevant information on a voluntary basis at the same time, but separate from the Mode 4 
commitments.  This information would be the same t ype of information an official enquiry point of a 
Member would be required to provide if other Members launch a request under GATS Article III:4.  
Under the Canadian proposal, all Members would share similar information at the time of making their Mode 4 commitments, so that all Members would have access to it. 
21. The representative of India
 said that there possibly were some general laws and regulations 
indirectly related to Mode 4 commitments for wh ich a voluntary approach, such as that outlined in 
Canada's proposal, could work.  However, he noted  that there were also a number of laws and 
regulations directly affecting Mode 4 commitm ents, for which it was doubtful that a voluntary S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 4  
 
 approach would work and which, in his delegati on's view, called for an approach based on binding 
disciplines. 
22. The representative of the European Communities
 wondered why Canada  had presented the 
paper in the Working Party, sin ce the transparency of existing regulations under GATS Article III was 
a matter for the Regular Session of the Services Counc il, while the transparency of new commitments 
was a matter for negotiations in the Special Session.  His delegation saw nothing in the proposal that 
related to Article VI:4 of the GATS. 
23. The representative of Australia  said that his delegation supported Canada's initiative in 
developing the template as a means of improving th e transparency of Mode 4 specific commitments.  
He informed Members that Australia was also in  the process of completing a similar template and 
hoped to be able to table it in due course. 
24. The representative of Japan  asked Canada about the relationship between the paper and the 
ongoing work of the Working Party and, in particul ar, if Canada was proposi ng the paper as part of 
the disciplines on domestic regulation. 
25. The representative of China  said that lack of transparency was an issue of great concern to his 
delegation, particularly in rela tion to Mode 4.  He urged other Members to follow the template 
proposed by Canada.  He asked Canada if that type  of information would be a stand-alone document 
or if it would be attached or referre d to in the schedule of commitments. 
26. The representative of Chinese Taipei  found the Canadian paper very useful and agreed with 
Canada that the template would help small- and medium-sized enterprises to understand the horizontal 
Mode 4 commitments. She wondered whether the template proposed in the WPDR would be 
applicable to all sectors and not only to Mode 4, considering the broader mandate of Article VI:4 on 
transparency issues.  
27. The representative of the Dominican Republic  welcomed the paper submitted by Canada, 
which she considered a valuable contribution to the discussions on transparency and Mode 4.  She 
said that her capital was still considering the docume nt, and that for the time being her delegation did 
not have any specific questions. 
28. The representative of the United States , regarding the submission of the Canadian paper in the 
WPDR, said that her delegation considered the su bmission more as an example of how Canada was 
improving the transparency of its specific commitm ents, rather than a formal proposal for the 
Article VI:4 negotiations.  She nonetheless looked forward to some clarification from Canada 
regarding the purpose of tabling the document before the WPDR. 
29. The capital-based representative noted that Cana da's paper was broadly consistent with the 
approach taken by the United States on transparency, but added that his delegation considered transparency to be equally important for all sectors and modes of supply.  He further added that while 
the paper was possibly a useful template for some c ountries, there were also other ways of achieving a 
similar result, such as the one proposed in the paper by India and other developing countries on 
transparency in Mode 4.  This last paper had led the United States to begin compiling a website, to be 
available within the State Department which woul d have, in consolidated form, all the different 
information related to the various  immigration regimes and regulations which affected temporary 
entry.  The United States representative hoped that this  approach might serve a very similar purpose to 
the Canadian proposal, although he recognised th at the latter represented a scheduling device that 
some Members might find useful.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 5 
 
 
 30. The Geneva based representative added that her delegation planned to circulate a paper with 
more information on the website referred to by her colleague. 
31. The representative of Mexico  agreed with the comments made by India regarding the 
Canadian paper.  He also agreed with the comment s made by the United States that there were other 
means to achieve the objectives behind the Canadian proposal, su ch as the proposal by some 
developing countries on transparency on Mode 4.  He added that while the issue was an important 
one, his delegation did not see a direct link betw een the proposal and the disciplines on domestic 
regulation under Article VI:4. 
32. The representative of Canada  recalled that it was the general understanding in the Working 
Party that, notwithstanding other elements of potent ial Article VI:4 disciplines, transparency was an 
important part of the VI:4 mandate.  He recalled that the Accountancy Disciplines contained rules on 
transparency beyond Article III of the GATS.  With  its template, Canada was suggesting a means to 
achieve transparency in Mode 4 regulatory frameworks, but was not looking at negotiating Canadian 
Mode 4 commitments in this Working Party.  It was simply indicating that one way of achieving 
transparency in this mode of supply might be through the completion of a template.  If Members 
thought this was a useful way forward, they woul d have to develop the la nguage in Article VI:4 
disciplines to implement it.  Canada had not incl uded this language in its proposal, which represented 
an outcome.  His delegation hoped that Members in their discussions would agree on the possible means to produce such a type of outcome.  Canada  did not prejudge other ways of achieving this 
outcome and was not suggesting to look at transparency only in Mode 4 as transparency was important in all modes of supply and sectors. 
33. In replying to a question from China, he said that to have a separate instrument from the 
schedules of commitments would allow Members to be more complete in the information they 
provided and to reflect on a more regular basis any ch anges that might occur.  For this reason Canada 
did not see such a document as an integral part of a schedule of commitments.  As for the voluntary or 
binding nature of this document, he said that this was a separate issue that would have to be discussed 
further by the Working Party. 
34. The representative of the United States
 asked Canada if it was proposing to incorporate the 
means of conveying the elements in the template in the Article VI:4 disciplines and whether Members 
should consider such a template as separate from the schedules.  In practice she sought clarification as 
to whether the paper was a semi-proposal to be cons idered as part of the Article VI:4 negotiations.  
She highlighted the difference between transparen cy under Article III of the GATS and transparency 
in the schedules and pointed out that on the other hand the United States proposal was concerned with 
transparency under Article VI:4 of the GATS.  Sh e also asked Canada to clarify what type of 
transparency its proposal was mainly concerned with. 
35. The representative of the European Communities  stressed that transparency under 
Article VI:4 went beyond Article III GATS, but only in relation to licensing requirements and 
procedures, qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards.  In the view of his 
delegation everything that was not related to those fi ve elements did not fall within the mandate of the 
Working Party.  His delegation was prepared to follow up on the Canadian proposal, but not in the Working Party. 
36. The representative of New Zealand
, regarding the status of the Canadian proposal, wondered 
whether a solution would have been to produce such templates as room documents, so as to make it 
clear that they would not have interpreting status with  respect to the schedules.  In fact, legislation and 
regulations were there to implement the commitm ents, not to supplement them.  The commitments 
were the legally binding measures, while legislati on and regulations could ch ange from time to time 
within the boundaries set by the commitments.  He said that the template was useful insofar as it S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 6  
 
 allowed Members to gain a sense of the contents of  commitments, but ultimately it was the actual text 
of commitments that mattered.  In this respect his delegation would not want th e availability of such a 
template to discourage Members from being specific in providing details in the actual schedules of 
commitments, which ultimately had legal stat us.  Otherwise his de legation would support a 
mechanism that helped to provide an additiona l sense on how the commitments would operate in 
practice, particularly for business people. 
37. The representative of Canada
 replied that his delegation did intend to table the proposal in the 
Working Party and that he had taken note of the co ncerns and questions raised by some Members in 
this respect.  He would refer such concerns back to  his authorities and revert to the item at the next 
meeting. 
38. The Chairman  proposed that Members take note of the comments and questions raised with 
respect to the proposal by Canada and revert to the item at the next meeting. 
39. The Working Party took note . 
Proposal by the United States  on Horizontal Transparency Discip lines in Domestic Regulation  
40. The Chairman  recalled that at the informal meeting held on 2 May 2005, the United States 
had presented a revised version of their proposal on transparency in domestic regulation, entitled 
Horizontal Transparency Disciplines in Domestic  Regulation:  Proposal by the United States , dated 
2 May 2005 and circulated as a room document.  At  that meeting Members had asked questions in a 
number of areas, followed by responses from the Un ited States.  He invited the delegation of the 
United States to introduce their revised proposal. 
41. The representative of the United States  recalled that when they introduced the proposal in 
February they had stressed the high priority th e United States had placed on transparency as a 
fundamental element to liberalize trade, promote good governance and assure benefits to all countries.  
The proposal applied to all sectors and modes of supply and all levels of  government, including sub-
central jurisdictions.  He stressed that this initiativ e in the WPDR had to be regarded as compatible 
with any sectoral transparency initiative that may be entertained in the future.  The proposal tabled at 
this meeting was a revised version of the initial paper, which contained a number of changes in 
response to the concerns raised by other Members during the informal discussions.  Although the United States believed they had addressed most of th ose concerns, it considered their latest proposal 
as a work in progress and was open to further discussi ons.  He then outlined the changes made with 
respect to the previous version. 
42. It had been clarified that the scope of the paper was limited to, but also explicitly addressed, 
the five elements listed in GATS Article VI:4.  Changes were made to B(3)(c) which dealt with 
responding in writing to comments on proposed regulations by changing the language so as to clarify 
that this provision required a summarized written r esponse to substantive comments and not specific 
individual responses to all comments.  Similarly, th e language was changed in C(2) as to clarify that 
this provision dealt with qualifying examination in  general and not necessarily limited to professional 
examinations.  Other clarifying changes to the la nguage were made in the document to address 
specific concerns raised by Members.  Finally, an  important change was th e introduction of footnote 1 
establishing special and differential treatment (S&D ) for Least Developed Country Members (LDCs).  
Although the United States believed that regulatory tr ansparency disciplines ha d clear benefit for all 
Members, with footnote 1 it attempted to address the special needs of LDCs by clarifying that LDCs would be required to comply only on a best-endeavour basis. 
43. The representative of Australia
 expressed support for the principle of regulatory transparency 
as indicated in the US paper.  He added that hi s delegation believed that the horizontal nature of  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 7 
 
 
 transparency underpinned all domestic regulation disci plines and that as such it should be considered 
as a priority issue that Members could address in advance of the Sixth Ministerial Conference. 
44. The representative of Chinese Taipei  agreed that transparency benefited access of their 
foreign markets to service suppliers and supporte d the concept raised in the US proposal that 
transparency was necessary in sever al stages of the regulatory process, when the measures took effect 
as well as in the decision-making process.  Regarding paragraph A(1) of the US proposal, her 
delegation agreed with the view that each Memb er should maintain appropriate mechanisms to 
respond to inquiries from interested persons in orde r to enhance transparency  and predictability.  
Regarding paragraph B(2), her de legation supported in principle the notion of requiring prior 
publication and reasonable opportunity for comments on any regulations which were adopted.  On this 
last point, however, her delegation was seeking clar ification on what was meant by the words "to the 
extent practicable", and in particular whether t hose requirements would also apply to cases of extreme 
urgency.  Regarding paragraph C(1)(c)(ii) she asked  for clarification on the wording "as appropriate", 
which in their view appeared to leave regulator s the power of determining whether they would 
provide the reasons for a denial of an app lication depending on the nature of the case. 
45. The representative of Canada  said that her capital was still reviewing the revised proposal by 
the United States and reiterated the importance Cana da placed on regulatory transparency, especially 
because of the benefits for small- and medium-sized firms. 
46. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the improvements made by the 
United States to their proposal, which took account of the comments made by Members on the initial 
proposal.  He emphasised the importance of identif ying in proposals clear, defined, necessary and 
realistic obligations, which might be included in possible horizontal disciplines applicable to all 
sectors.  He said that in his delegation's view the US proposal contained clear and defined obligations.  
Regarding realism, he added that many elements in  the US proposal were also realistic, while other 
elements were still under examination and should  be taken up in the forthcoming meetings. 
47. The representative of Switzerland  said that her delegation believed that many of the elements 
in the US paper were also common to other prop osals on transparency and there was good ground for 
building on such common elements.  Switzerland  believed that regulatory transparency was a 
fundamental issue and was surprised to see the addition of footnote 1 on LDCs as, in its view on the issue of S&D, there was a need for more pr ecise and operational technical assistance measures. 
48. The representative of the Philippines
 said that his authorities in capital were still reviewing 
the US proposal together with all the other propo sals on domestic regulation.  His delegation thought 
that this was a very positive contribution and shared  the thought that transparency was very important 
to help businesses, enterprises and Members to have  a clear understanding of  the domestic regulatory 
frameworks.  He also expressed comparable appr eciation for the Canadian proposal presented under 
the previous item.  He wondered whether the propon ents had any data, information or experience to 
share for the purpose of establishing the kind of me chanisms outlined in these types of proposals and, 
particularly, if these would be burdensome for developing and least developed countries.  This 
question was related to the issue of special and differential treatment and with the capacity of 
developing countries and LDCs to implement such  type of mechanisms, bearing in mind the 
multiplicity of services sectors and regulatory frameworks. 
49. The representative of Malaysia  said that her delegation was concerned about the elements in 
paragraph B(2), in particular the requirement to provide opportunities for prior comments, which 
would definitively be incompatible with their le gislative process and place an excessive burden on 
developing countries.  In the view of her delegati on such types of provisions should remain on a best 
endeavour basis. S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 8  
 
 50. The representative of Argentina
 said that in the view of his delegation the US paper was 
going in the right direction and found it interest ing that it was proposing different levels of 
obligations.  His capital was studying the feasibility of  applying the various proposed obligations.  His 
delegations had some doubts concerning the relations hip of footnote 2 with paragraphs other than 
those it referred to (2 and 3).  That is to say, wh ether other paragraphs in the paper would apply to 
regulations of general application relating to the military or foreign affairs functions.  He also 
wondered about the scope of the words "regulation of  general application" in footnote 3.  Regarding 
section (C) of the paper he inquired about the meani ng of the word "Licensure" in paragraph (1) and 
said that his delegation thought that paragraph (2) w as more related to the issues of procedure than 
with transparency.  Regarding the relationship be tween (C) and (D) he w ondered what would happen 
when one of the requirements to complete an ap plication under (C)(1)(a) was related to a travel 
document or an authorization for a natural person to which the disciplines should not apply according 
to (D)(1). 
51. The representative of Hong Kong, China  agreed with the United States that it would have 
been useful to have more detailed accounts of th e informal discussions in the WPDR, even on a non-
attributable basis.  He added, however, that if Members choose to do this in the WPDR, it would be 
equally useful to take the same approach in other subsidiary bodies.  Regarding the content of the US 
paper he stressed that his delegation recognised the importance of transparency and supported a 
number of the elements that had been included in the revised draft.  He remarked, however, that 
transparency alone was not enough to achieve the objectives of Article VI:4, which called for 
disciplines to ensure the certainty and effectiveness of market access commitments.  For this reason it 
would be important to consider all the transparency  proposals on the table together with all the other 
elements that Members had put forward in other pr oposals.  He said that he would come back on the 
individual VI:4 elements when the Working Party would address the Matrix of proposals compiled by 
the Secretariat. 
52. The representative of Mexico  said that his delegation had e xpressed a consistent position on 
the issue of transparency as stated  in the US proposal.  It was the view of his delegation that 
transparency was not an objective in itself but one of the means that could help Members fulfil the 
objectives of Article VI:4 of the GATS.  While th ey agreed that disciplin es on transparency were 
necessary, they would have to be completed with ot her elements.  Regarding the scope of application 
of the US proposal, Mexico noted that there was discrepancy between the concepts used in the 
proposal (regulations, examinations, etc.) and the concept of measure used in Article XXVIII(a) and 
VI:4 of the GATS.  While Article XXVIII(a) contained a definition of the term "measure", 
Article VI:4 referred to measures related to five el ements (qualification, re quirements and procedures, 
technical standards and licensing requirements and pr ocedures).  He argued that the disciplines which 
the Working Party was developing had to be rela ted with the concept of measure as defined in 
Article XXVIII(a) and Article VI:4 of the GATS.  Regarding footnote 1 he said that, while his 
delegation was not opposed to special and differen tial treatment for LDCs, it was unusual in the WTO 
to reserve S&D treatment only to LDCs and not to  extend it to all devel oping countries.  Although 
there was a difference between these two groups of countries, it was not acceptable to exclude a priori  
developing countries from S&D treatment, also in the light of Article IV(1) of  the GATS, which had a 
direct relationship with the domestic regulation di sciplines.  Regarding section (D) he wondered why 
the United States had included this provision, consid ering that any possible disciplines would have to 
be applied consistently with all GATS provisions. 
53. The representative of Indonesia  said that his delegation also co nsidered transparency a very 
important issue but stressed that additional obligat ions beyond national laws and regulations bore a 
significant burden on developing countries and it was for that reason Indonesia was not prepared to accept additional obligations, unless they were given th e status of a best-endeavour clause.  He said 
that his capital was looking at the proposal in deta il and would come back with more comments in the 
future.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 9 
 
 
 54. The representative of Chile  shared the concern expressed by other developing countries on 
footnote 1.  Although LDCs had unique capacity cons traints, many other developing countries also 
had resource and budget constraints.  She suggested  the inclusion of more detailed language on S&D 
and that S&D also be extended to other developi ng countries.  She agreed with Argentina that 
paragraph C(2) on qualifying examinat ions was more a procedural issue than a transparency one.  She 
also agreed with Hong Kong, China on the importanc e of having more detailed summaries of informal 
meetings, not only in the WPDR but in other subsid iary bodies, as well as in the Special Session of 
the Services Council.  This would be necessary in  order to allow delegations to keep track of 
discussions, especially small delegations who often had parallel meetings to attend. 
55. The representative of Uganda  said that her delegation found the US proposal interesting.  She 
welcomed the reference to S&D treatment for LD Cs as well as the comment made by the Philippines 
on the same issue.  She asked the Un ited States if they would be willing to shift the reference to LDCs 
from a footnote to the main body of the document. 
56. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation saw transparency not as the only element, 
but as one many important elements to be included in the possible disciplines and for this reason they 
had included elements other than transparency in  their proposal for a draft annex on domestic 
regulation disciplines.  As mentioned by the European Communities, she also looked forward to further discussion on the US proposal at future meetings, keeping in mind the criteria of clarity, precision and realism. 
57. The representative of Pakistan
 expressed appreciation for the efforts made by the United 
States in incorporating comments, made by Members at  previous meetings, in their revised draft.  As 
other Members, Pakistan also wanted all devel oping countries to benefit from the S&D provision of 
footnote 1.  Regarding the opening paragraph of the paper on "additional" duties, her delegation' 
preferred the reference to the "str engthening" of existing enquiry poi nts, which in reality were not 
functioning properly.  In her view this would help  address the point made by Indonesia and others of 
avoiding placing an additional burden on developing countries. 
58. The representative of Guatemala  agreed on the importance of transparency for services 
exporters.  Regarding footnote 1, she agreed with those Members who had asked for the extension of 
S&D treatment to all developing countries.  As these were only preliminary comments, she reserved 
the right to come back with more comments at the following meetings. 
59. The representative of Brazil  echoed the comments of those Members who had stressed that 
S&D treatment should be ex tended to all developing countries.  Re garding paragraphs B(2) and (3) of 
the US paper, he said his delegation was not prep ared to consider them, as the ideas of prior 
comments, standard plain language for domestic re gulation and replying to comments in writing, did 
not fall within the concept of transparency which hi s delegation could accept.  In practice, that would 
create significant resource and budgetary burdens for developing countries, which, more than 
developed countries, were still establishing new re gulations.  Moreover, in many cases emergency 
measures had to be taken, thus not allowing any tim e for comments by interested parties.  Regarding 
specifically the issue of "plain language" he noted th at each country had its juridical traditions and this 
concept would inevitably be subjective.  As a matter  of principle, he added that the idea of prior 
comment did not seem to fall within the concept of transparency.  Regarding footnote 3 on page 3, he 
asked the United States why examinations by fina ncial service regulators were excluded by the 
application of paragraph C(2). 
60. The representative of Rwanda  welcomed the inclusion of footnote 1 on S&D treatment for 
LDCs.  She reiterated that LDCs would find it diff icult to comply with requirements establishing 
mechanisms for enquiries, publications or notific ations, so that the best-endeavour clause was 
appropriate.  She offered to coope rate with the United States on furt her developing the S&D provision S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 10  
 
 in their paper by including issues such as technical  assistance to LDCs in order to enable them to 
develop their regulatory frameworks and to meet as necessary requirements in the export markets. 
61. The representative of Norway
 stated that the United States proposals represented a very useful 
starting point for disciplines in this area and appreci ated the inclusive way in which the United States 
had reflected comments given by Members in the re vised document.  His capital was still reviewing 
the revised proposal and might come back with more detailed comments at subsequent meetings. 
62. The representative of India  expressed concern on footnote 1, which appeared to change the 
nature of S&D for all developing countries.  He al so emphasised that transp arency was certainly one 
of the objectives of the disciplines, but it should not be considered as an end in itself.  His delegation wanted to see disciplines in all the areas of Artic le VI:4.  As Chile and Hong Kong, China the 
representative of India said that hi s delegation would come back with  more detailed comments on this 
proposal in the discussions on the Matrix. 
63. The representative of Korea
 said that her delegation fully supported disciplines on 
transparency as a beginning for horizontal disciplines on domestic regulation.  Regarding 
paragraph B(2)(b) and B(3)(c) she asked the United St ates if "interested persons" referred only to the 
suppliers providing the service or whether it also included other interested parties such as NGOs or 
business associations from another country.  Regard ing paragraph B(3)(c) she wondered whether the 
written explanation required should be provided direc tly to the interested persons or could it be 
provided to the government and whether it should be published or it could be given subject to 
confidentiality.  Regarding the wording "to the ex tent practicable" in paragraph B(3) she wondered 
whether such wording was meant to reflect in dividual capacities of governments to provide 
transparency disciplines.  She stre ssed that any disciplines to be developed should be applied to all 
levels of government and wondere d whether the wording "to the extent practicable" implied any 
differential treatment between central and local gove rnment.  Regarding the requirement to use "plain 
language", she asked if this was a requirement to  use the language of the supplier's host country. 
64. The representative of China  made some preliminary comments on the US paper, considering 
that his capital was still examining the paper in detail.   He agreed that transparency was a fundamental 
element of the disciplines, although in the view of  his delegation there should be a balance between 
transparency requirements and the burden that those imposed on Members.  In this respect, China was 
concerned about the parts of the US proposal such  as the publication of regulations in advance of 
adoption and footnote 1 on S&D.  Although they r ecognised that LDCs should be entitled to special 
treatment, they were not convinced that other deve loping countries should bear the same obligations 
as developed countries.  Regardi ng paragraph A(1) he wondered wh at exactly had to be provided 
under "official title".  Regarding B(3)(c) he asked what issues had to be regarded as "substantive 
issues" and if a Member would be exempted fro m this obligation should there be no substantive 
issues.  Lastly he said that his delegation supp orted the positions of Hong Kong, China and Chile 
asking for more detailed summaries of the informal meetings. 
65. The representative of the  Dominican Republic  appreciated the fact that the United States had 
incorporated, in the revision of its proposal, the comments made by Members at previous meetings.  
As other Members she expressed concern that S&D treatment in footnote 1 had not been extended to all developing countries and that it was confined to  a footnote rather than to the main body of the 
document.  She encouraged the United States to revise this part by extending the S&D treatment to all 
developing countries and by adding elements of  technical assistance to help small developing 
countries to implement the future di sciplines.  She further noted that transparency was important, but 
that it had to be seen as a part of a broader set of disciplines to be addressed in this Working Party.   
66. The representative of El Salvador
 expressed concern about the fact that the revised proposal 
did not extend S&D treatment to all developing countries.  She noted that El Salvador, as a  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 11 
 
 
 developing country, also faced important capacity cons traints with respect to the disciplined proposed 
by the United States. 
67. The representative of Bolivia  agreed with Mexico that transparency was important, but that it 
should not be considered an objective itself.  Sh e also expressed concern that in footnote 1 no 
provision had been made for S&D treatment for all developing countries. 
68. The representative of Barbados  echoed other Members' concer ns about the limited scope of 
footnote 1 and argued that it should be broadene d to extend S&D treatmen t to all developing 
countries.  She also suggested that the S&D provision be moved to the main body of the proposal. 
69. The representative of Antigua and Barbuda  expressed concern about the limitation of 
footnote 1 to LDCs and the absence of elements regarding technical assistance, considering the 
burden new disciplines could place on developing countri es.  He asked the Unit ed States whether they 
had considered the designation of a regional secretar iat to help small developing countries fulfil the 
requirements of their proposed transparency disciplin es.  He also wondered wh ether the United States 
thought that technical standards based on interna tional standards should also be published according 
to section (B).  He reserved the right to come ba ck with further comments at further discussions on 
this item. 
70. The representative of New Zealand  said that his delegation appreciated this proposal, but saw 
that it as a beginning rather than an end and that it could be usefully taken into account in the context 
of the other papers that also had been submitted to  the Working Party.  Regarding a comment made by 
the Philippines, who had asked about practical examples of implementation of transparency 
disciplines, he brought attention to the APEC i ndividual transparency action plan that APEC 
Members completed and updated on an annual basis.  This was a transparency regime that was more 
comprehensive than that anticipated under Article  VI:4.  He expressed support for paragraph B(2)(b) 
in the US proposal (opportunity for comments), which in the view of his delegation was an integral 
part of transparency, meant as a two-way conve rsation with information requirements on the 
authorities, but also the opportunity for interested  parties to inform authorities of how impeding 
regulations may affect them.  His delegation was in terested in hearing more from those Members who 
were concerned about the implementation of the opportunity to comment. 
71. The representative of Cuba  expressed concern that S&D treatment in footnote 1 had not been 
extended to all developing countri es, which in the view of her de legation should also be entitled to 
S&D treatment. 
72. The representative of South Africa  agreed with Chile and Hong Kong, China who had called 
for more substantive summaries of the informal meetings as this would create a link between 
discussions in the formal and informal meetings.  Regarding section B of the United States paper she 
expressed concern about the burden of publication on developing countries, considering resource 
implications.  She noted that looking at practical experiences would be useful to address the issue of 
implementation for developing countries.  Regarding the issue of prior comment s she agreed with the 
concerns expressed by Brazil and Malaysia for tho se countries who had resource limitations.  Finally 
regarding footnote 1, she said that this was a very  sensitive issue and that her delegation was aware of 
the special situation of LDCs.  She suggested to shif t the footnote into the main part of the text to 
highlight the S&D issue and to extend S&D treat ment to all developing countries, as all faced 
resource constraints.  A footnote then could be added to the new text indicating that, as LDCs faced even more stringent resource constraints than ot her developing countries, more resources would be 
devoted to capacity building for LDCs. 
73. The representative of Qatar
 expressed appreciation for the paper by the United States and 
asked clarifications on the relationship between the re quirement to provide information to an applicant S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 12  
 
 within a reasonable period of time in paragraph C and domestic laws and regulations.  He expressed 
interest in having further discussions on this proposal. 
74. The representative of Kenya
 endorsed the comments of those who had remarked that 
transparency was important, but that it was not enou gh and pointed out that hi s delegation would have 
appreciated the views of the United States on discip line in other areas of Article VI:4.  He also 
expressed concern about the lack of S&D treatment and flexibility for all developing countries.  On 
advance publication and prior consultation his dele gation had many reservations and would provide 
specific comments at subsequent meetings.  His auth orities would also have more difficulties with the 
publication of information than me asures of general application. 
75. The representative of Thailand  echoed concerns expressed by previous speakers on the S&D 
provision and by Korea on the issue of whether "plain language" meant hos t country language, the 
scope of "interested parties" and the manner in wh ich written explanations s hould be provided.  Her 
delegation also agreed with South Africa and other on the issue of prior comments and on its 
implications for developing countries. 
76. The representative of the United States  took the floor to address the comments made by 
delegations on their revised proposal on transparen cy.  She expressed appreciation for the fact that 
Chile and Hong Kong, China agreed with the US po sition that summaries of the informal meetings 
should be more detailed.  She recalled, however, th at Hong Kong, China had also requested that the 
same approach be followed in other subsidiary bodi es, which she noted was outside the scope of this 
Working Party.  She emphasised that her request wa s limited to this Working Party, considering its 
negotiating mode, and that her dele gation was not prepared to address systemic issues affecting other 
bodies in the WPDR.  She also suggested as a possib ility that a formal meeting of the Working Party 
could switch to informal mode for the substa ntive discussions, if detailed summaries of such 
discussions were then made available to Members. 
77. Regarding the issue of the burdensomeness of  transparency disciplines for developing 
countries raised by some Members, she suggested th at the same issue also be raised for all other 
proposals on the table and that this was not a deve loping country only issue.  Regarding footnote 1, 
her delegation had indicated already that it would be ready to move it to the main body of the text.  
On S&D generally, she said her delegation was sensiti ve to the capacity constraints of LDCs as well 
as of other developing countries and that for this reason the whole text of the proposal had been designed to take into account the capacity constraint s of all Members, whether LDCs, developing or 
developed.  For instance, flexibility was provided by  the expression "to the extent practicable" in all 
sections of the paper except sections A(1) and B(1). However, the special constraints of LDCs did call 
for a specific provision and this was not unprecedente d in the WTO, as for instance the TRIPS had a 
specific provision, Article 66 entitled Least Developed Country Members. 
78. She emphasised that the United States wanted di sciplines in all Article VI:4 areas and that 
they were not making a proposal only in transparen cy.  However, since many Members had requested 
that the United States engage more on elements of  the horizontal disciplines they had conducted an 
exercise of internal consultations on the elemen ts that would be adaptable to their internal 
consistencies and so far they ha d come up with support for horizontal disciplines on transparency.  
They were also consulting their constituencies on the proposals by other Members on other elements 
of Article VI:4.  She suggested that other Member s should also conduct domestic consultations on the 
proposals.  Regarding the comments by some dele gations that the requirement to provide the 
opportunity for comments in paragraph B(2)(b) was no t concerned with transparency she objected that 
this provision was indeed related to transparen cy and pointed out that the same provision was 
included in the Accountancy Disciplines.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 13 
 
 
 79. The representative of Hong Kong, China  raised a point of order requesting that the discussion 
on the elements contained in the proposals be based on the Matrix, which contained all the proposals.  
He said that this would have been desirable consid ering the high number of proposals on the table and 
the limited time available for discussions.  He also  repeated that while his delegation supported 
having more detailed records of the informal disc ussion taking place in the WPDR, it was also asking 
for consistency when other Members asked for simila r detailed records of the informal meetings of 
other subsidiary bodies.  Regardi ng domestic consultations, he said that  his delegation also engaged in 
domestic consultations in its own way and took note of the suggesti on made by the delegation of the 
United States on this issue. 
80. On the point of order raised by Hong Kong, China on addressing the elements contained in 
the proposals based on the Matrix, th e representative of the United States  said that her delegation 
could not support it, as the Matrix was only an in formation piece and not a basis for negotiations.  
Because of the way the Matrix appeared it looked as if  all the elements in the proposals should go into 
a single horizontal text, which might prejudge the way the elements in the proposals would be treated.  
Her delegation wanted to continue discussions based  on Members' proposals, as it had been done with 
the US proposal.  She said that her capital-based re presentative would come back at the next meeting 
with more detailed answers on the comments ma de by delegations on their proposal.  
81. The representative of Chile  enquired if other Members, who had put forward proposals, 
would have a problem discussing such proposals on the basis of the Matrix, which did incorporate all the different aspect of all the proposals.  
82. The representative of th e European Communities
 suggested that as from the next meeting 
Members should organize their discussions subject-by-subject rather than proposal-by-proposal, 
following the five issues in Article VI:4 (li censing requirements and procedures, qualification 
requirements and procedures and technical standa rds).  This would also include discussion of 
horizontal themes such as transparency, treatment of developing countries or  levels of government.  
However, if Members wanted to continue discu ssion at this meeting based on the Matrix, his 
delegation would ha ve no objections. 
83. The representative of India  said that his delegation would have no difficulties continuing 
discussion at this meeting based on the Matrix, cons idering that it replied, almost verbatim, the 
content of all the proposals. 
84. The representative of Brazil  expressed doubts on a discussion based on subjects, considering 
that the proposals and the Matrix were already on th e table to be discussed.  He pointed out, however, 
that any thematic discussion would also have to  focus on horizontal themes, as clarified by the 
European Communities. 
85. The representatives of Mexico , Switzerland , New Zealand  and Japan  expressed support for a 
discussion based on the Matrix or on subject s suggested by the European Communities. 
86. The representatives of the United States  repeated the reasons why her delegation did not 
support the idea of discussing proposals based on th e Matrix.  Nevertheless, she said that her 
delegation respected the right of Members to discuss their proposals in the format they preferred at 
this meeting and was willing to entertain informal consultations on the suggestion put forward by the 
European Communities for an alternative format of discussions for the next meetings.  However, she 
reserved the right of her delegation to remove the US proposal from the Matrix, if necessary. 
87. The Chairman  noted that the Working Party had had a good discussion of the paper by the 
United States on transparency and that some Members had suggested that Members, if they so wished, 
could share their experiences on transparency.  He en couraged Members to do so, if they so wished.  S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 14  
 
 He the said that he would consult Members on the fo rmat of the summaries of informal meetings and 
on the format of discussions for the coming meetings.  He then invited the Working Party to take note of the discussions on the paper by the United States and to revert to it at the next meeting. 
88. The Working Party took note
. 
Paper by Chile, Hong Kong, China, Korea,  Sw itzerland, Chinese Taipei and Thailand on Different 
Levels of Government  
89. The Chairman  introduced a paper by Chile, Hong K ong, China, Korea, Switzerland Chinese 
Taipei and Thailand, entitled Application of Regulatory Disciplines to Different Levels of 
Governments and Non-Governmental Bodies, dated 27 April 2005 and circulated as a room document.  
He invited the proponents of this paper to  make initial comments on their paper. 
90. The representative of Hong Kong, China  recalled that the paper had first been introduced at 
the informal meeting held on 2 May 2005 and that in that respect it would have been helpful to have 
more detailed summaries of the discussions that took place at that meeting.  He noted that all the 
elements that had been put forward in the paper had then been reported in the Matrix, so that in the 
interest of time he would come back on the substa nce of the paper, when the Matrix was addressed.  
As for the organization of future discussions, he s uggested that the Chairman take up in informal 
consultations the issue of finding a more cons tructive way of working through the proposals. 
91. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation we lcomed this paper as a 
positive contribution to the discussions in the WPDR.  Sh e noted that to a large extent the elements of 
this paper appeared to be captured by existing comm itments in Articles I, III and VI:4, and, therefore, 
might already be covered by the GATS.  Aside fro m proposed element (b), requiring a comprehensive 
list of sub-federal jurisdictions and related inform ation, she asked the proponents to clarify which 
specific elements in the proposal they considered to  be new with respect to existing GATS provisions.  
She further noted that the paper stated that Member countries with federal systems often presented domestic and foreign service providers with a “m yriad of domestic regul ations and regulatory 
agencies.”  She wondered how, in the absence of di scriminatory action or intent, such regulations 
constituted a particular burden for foreign service providers as compared with domestic providers. 
92. Regarding Part III of the proposal on non-governmental bodies, she said that the three 
elements listed (relationship with supply of servi ce, enforcement authority, and linkage with 
government regulations) provided a useful means of considering the role of such bodies.  However, 
paragraph 8 seemed to suggest that the presence of just one of these elements meant that a non-
governmental entity had become a regulatory author ity.  Her delegation believed that this was an 
oversimplification.  The fact that a licensing aut hority choose to adopt the standards put forth by a 
non-governmental body did not shift legal authority to the private body.  If this were true, she wondered whether a requirement to have a univers ity degree also meant automatically that the 
university became a regulatory authority. 
93. She remarked that in several places the pape r sought to establish differential standards for 
developing countries.  While her delegation appreciat ed the special capacity constraints of LDCs and 
other developing countries, the wording of proposed element (d) appeared to imply that where obligations “might impose significant burdens” on de veloped country Members, “regulatory capacity 
and administrative cost” need not be taken into  consideration.  Her delegation believed that 
administrative costs were relevant to all Me mber countries when considering new regulatory 
disciplines.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 15 
 
 
 Paper by Brazil, Colombia, Dominican Republic , Peru and Philippines on Elements for Draft 
Disciplines on Domestic Regulation  
94. The Chairman  introduced a paper from Brazil, Colomb ia, the Dominican Republic, Peru and 
the Philippines entitled   Elements for Draft Disciplines on Domestic Regulation,  dated 26 April 2005 
and circulated as a room document.  He recalled that a revised version of this paper was circulated at 
the informal meeting on 2 May 2005.  At that meeting, Members had made further comments and 
asked questions on a range of aspects, followed by responses from the paper's proponents.  He invited 
the proponents of the paper to make some initial comments. 
95. The representative of Brazil  said that they had no initial comments to make, as the paper had 
already been introduced in the Working Party.  Li ke Hong, Kong, China, he reserved all comments on 
the substance of the paper for the discussions on the Matrix.  In replying to a question by Canada, he 
said that no redline version reflecting the changes ma de to the paper had been prepared.  They had 
nevertheless indicated orally at the informal meeting the changes made to the paper.  He said that the 
proponents would be ready to prepare a redline version of the document outlining the history of 
changes to their proposals, if other Members thought it would be useful. 
Paper by Bolivia, Chile, India, Mexico Paki stan and Thailand on Qualification Requirements and 
Procedures  
96. The Chairman  introduced a paper from Bolivia, Chile, India, Mexico, Pakistan and Thailand, 
entitled, Proposed Elements for Disciplines on Qualification Requirements and Procedures , 
circulated as JOB(05)/50 dated 30 March 2005.  He r ecalled that at the meeting of 31 March, 2055 
Bolivia had announced that they it would join the co-sponsors of this proposal.  He invited the 
proponents of this paper to make  initial comments on their paper. 
97. The representative of India  said that at they had no initial comments to make, but as for the 
preceding two papers, he reserved all comments on the substance of the papers for the discussions on 
the Matrix. 
98. The representative of the United States  said that they had been conducting internal 
consultations on this paper and that they ha d received some feedback.  The capital-based 
representative said that his delegation saw some commonalities between this proposal and the US 
paper on horizontal transparency.  For instance el ements of the proposed qualification requirements 
disciplines as contained in paragraphs A(i), (iii) and (vii) appeared to be covered by the US proposal.  
For qualification procedures B(i), (iii) and (vi) also appeared to be covered by the US proposal.  He 
said that his delegation was very interested in e xploring other elements of commonalities in the two 
papers. 
99. Their consultation with domestic licensing bodi es had indicated that there would be 
significant differences in their ability to implemen t the disciplines proposed in this paper.  Many 
elements appeared to be acceptable, while others were problematic for some professions.  In this 
respect he took note of the flexibility provided by the statement in paragraph 3 of the paper, which 
referred to the possible horizontal or sectoral application of the proposed disciplines.  He also 
commented on the standard of compliance of the pr oposed disciplines and noted that for some sectors 
certain elements would be acceptable on a best-ende avour basis but not as mandatory requirements.  
He expressed concerns about the possible implementation of the proposed disciplines and asked the proponents how they expected to implement them in their own regulatory systems. 
100. He then presented a list of questions his delega tion had gathered as a result of their internal 
consultation on this proposal.  The following general concerns were raised in the consultations by the 
consulted parties: S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 16  
 
 • Consulted parties asked what precisely was m eant by “qualifications” in this paper and 
whether it was limited to the licensing, certification or registration of individuals, or was it also meant to capture such things as academic  diplomas, and accreditation of institutions and 
programs. 
• It was pointed out that verification of edu cational qualifications/com petency depended to a 
large extent on the administrative structures of the sending country.  It was not always within 
the power of the receiving country authority to assess such qualifications/competency quickly 
and accurately. For example, in the United States, equivalency generally rested on 
accreditation, a quality assurance process that involved detailed assessments of academic 
institutions and specific degree programs.  Not all countries had accreditation systems, and not all accreditation systems applied the same standa rds.  So credentials could not be taken at 
face value.  Furthermore, not all countries had accreditation systems that were explicitly 
linked to the licensing/registration process.  Disciplines on domestic regulation concerning 
verification of education requirements s hould in some way acknowledge these issues. 
• A(iii) referred to “equivalency of educational systems,” but it was noted that in the United 
States equivalency was normally determined on the level of curriculum or programme, not of 
“systems.”  
• Establishing equivalency of academic qualifica tions was not a once and for all event.  
Disciplines on domestic regulation in this ar ea should acknowledge the need for an ongoing 
process of quality assurance, as programs and cu rricula changed over time, as did regulatory 
requirements.  
• Many professions offered exams in the context of formal testing centres.  In most cases it was 
not feasible to provide such testing services in the home country. 
 101. He then presented some more specific comments and question by the consulted parties 
relating to section A of the proposed disciplines on qualification requirements: 
• A(ii): this provision appeared to be already cove red by Article VI:6.  It was asked what was 
meant by “prima facie” in this context. 
• A(iii) – Tic 3: consulted parties asked what was meant by “provided for” in this provision.  
Whether it meant that the receiving country’s regulator would be required to provide the 
necessary supplemental education within the terri tory of the other Member.  Or that such 
supplementary education should not be require d if only available in the receiving country. 
• A(iv): consulted parties agreed that requireme nts should be linked to relevant subjects, but 
asked who determined what was relevant.  Knowledge of local laws and prevailing codes of 
ethics could be considered relevant by the domestic regulator, but not necessarily a foreign 
service provider. 
• A(v): it was noted that the meaning of this elem ent was unclear.  It appeared to state that 
language proficiency should not be a requireme nt to sit for an exam.  But if language 
proficiency was required in orde r to provide the service, consulted parties wondered why it 
shouldn’t be a requirement to sit for the ex am establishing competency.  In practice why 
would someone sit for an exam, if he did not have the other qualifications (language ability) 
to be licensed/certified. 
• A(vi) -  tic 2: it was pointed out that not all professions established competency through 
exam, but in any event such exams tested know ledge, not qualifications. Tic 5: it was pointed 
out that experience could not always take the place of education as this was at the discretion 
of the regulator. 
• A(vi) – tic 6: it was noted that the meaning of this element was unclear.  It was asked whether 
it meant that home country associations must provide verification of their membership, or that receiving countries must rely on the verification of home country associations.  If the latter applied, it was pointed out that not all home c ountry associations were equally reliable.  At a 
minimum this element should have read: “Membership of professional  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 17 
 
 
 associations/institutions in the home country which require adherence to a code of conduct or 
code of ethics…” 
• A(vii): the meaning of this element was not cl ear.  Consulted parties asked if it meant that 
there had to be clearly established procedures for licensing.  If so, they agreed and noted that 
this was covered to a large extent by the US  horizontal transparency proposal. They felt, 
however, that this provision should also include the expectation that licenses were valid for a 
specific period of time, and must be rene wed with proof of ongoing education and 
confirmation of no violations  of practice regulations. 
 102. He concluded by saying that these consultations had been very important as they helped his 
delegation in determining whether or nor adopting these provision on an horizontal basis would be 
feasible for the United States.   His delegation looked forward also to a discussion on the viability of 
horizontal discipline in other Members. 
103. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said that, although her delegation had already raised 
certain points on this proposals at earlier meetings, she wanted to reiterate some comments on certain elements contained in Section III of the paper. 
104. Her delegation could accept what the proponents st ated in the paragraph 7 that "the market 
access can be rendered meaningless if relevant qualifi cations held by foreign service suppliers are not 
recognized for the purpose of provision of service."  In  this context, regarding paragraph 13(A)(i), her 
delegation supported that the transparency provisi ons pertaining to qualification requirements should 
be incorporated into the proposed disciplines, as this was one of the essential criteria provided for in 
Article VI:4(a) of the GATS together with the competence and the ability to supply the service. 
105. With respect to the issue of equivalency a ddressed in paragraph A(ii) of Section III, her 
delegation concurred with the view that a Member should take account of qualifications acquired in 
the territory of another Member on the basis of equi valency.  This criterion of  equivalency existed in 
the Disciplines on Domestic Regulation for the Account ancy Sector, adopted by the Council for Trade 
in Services, in the TBT Agreement as well as in th e SPS Agreement.  She called for delegations to 
study further how this criterion could be put into practice, considering the lack of harmonization of 
education, experience and examination requirement s among Members.  Moreover, on this aspect, her 
delegation suggested that Members take note of th e role that mutual recognition agreements could 
play and consider making it a priority with a vi ew to facilitating the process of verification of 
qualifications or the establishment of equivalency of education. 
106. Regarding the mechanism for the verification of  educational qualifications of foreign service 
providers proposed in  paragraph A(iii) of Part  III, she expressed doubts on the fact that the 
verification of educational qualif ications conducted by Members should involve the possibility of 
considering additional educational packages the servi ce supplier might fulfil in his home country.  In 
the view of her delegation the availability of a dditional educational packages had no correlation with 
the determination of qualification requirements fo r the practice of a profession.  Moreover, more 
clarifications were needed on the question of how the different educational systems could be 
identified as "comparable" and how the harmonization exam could be scheduled. 
107. On the point of language requirement for s itting examinations or for the practice of a 
profession, her delegation considered that any i nherent competitive disadvantages resulting from the 
foreign character of a services supplier (such as t hose concerning the language) could not constitute 
de facto discrimination.  The host country should be able to require the use of its official language in 
these situations. 
108. In relation to the establishment of mechanisms for verification of professional competence 
proposed in paragraph A(vi) of this proposal, her delegation expressed support for the view that work S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 18  
 
 experience, membership of professional associations  in the home country and the bona fides of 
service suppliers were relevant factors to be ta ken into account in the process of verification of 
professional competence.   Nevertheless, they had some reservations on the requirement of holding a 
common professional exam on how should such "co mmon professional exam" be defined and how the 
result of such an exam should be used as a basis for verification of education qualifications, work 
experience and training simultaneously.  In the view of her delegationm, more discussions among 
Members would be required in order to clarify these issues. 
109. On the point of conducting examinations at  reasonably frequent intervals, she asked 
delegations to provide their views on what frequenc y they would regard as reasonable.  It was her 
delegation's belief that frequent intervals for ex aminations depended on specific domestic conditions 
and on the needs of the various service activities, so that greater flexibility on this was needed. 
110. Her delegation was of the view that fees charged by the competent authorities should not 
represent an impediment in themselves for practicing th e relevant service activity.  In this regard, she 
expressed a preference for the language used in Ar ticle VIII of the GATT "shall be limited in amount 
to the approximate cost of service rendered," rath er than the broader phrase in the proposal "should 
have regard to the administrative costs involved."  She suggested the inclusion of this phrase for 
addressing trade barriers caused by administrative fees. 
111. Her delegation agreed with the view that verifi cation of an applicant's qualifications acquired 
in the territory of another Member should take pl ace within a reasonable timeframe, as described in 
the proposal.  Their question on this point was what should the reasonable timeframe be.  She requested delegations' views on how to address the different requirements contained in the 
Accountancy Disciplines regarding reasonable time frames, starting in principle with six months, 
taking into account differences in administrative e fficiency and systemic operations among Members.  
Her delegation proposed to apply greater flexibility on this point. 
112. As to the issue of re-submitting applications and providing other material substantiating the 
application, their view was that an applicant s hould be permitted to re-subm it applications and other 
materials to meet the required qualification under th e conditions applied in the judicial systems of 
Members.  In the view of her delegation, if servi ce providers were unable to re-submit an application 
based on more substantive materials, the market  access commitments on the movement of natural 
persons under Mode 4 might be impaired. 
113. The representative of Bolivia
 said that her delegation had jo ined the sponsors of document 
JOB(05)/50.  This document provided elements for a minimal development of possible future 
disciplines to facilitate market access for services supp liers.  It introduced fundamental elements for 
further discussion, including the subject of special and differential treatment. 
114. The representative of India  addressed some of the general issued raised.  Regarding the more 
specific issues he pointed out that this proposal was not a drafting text, but contained some ideas of elements that could go into disciplines on qualifica tion requirements and procedures.  None of it 
should be seen as suggesting a particular language.  Regarding the horizontal or sectoral applicability 
of the disciplines, he said that the proponents of the paper did not have particular ideas about it and 
that it depended to a large extent on the kind of elemen ts that Members would agree to at a later stage.  
Such a question was common to all proposals on the table.  Regarding implementation, he said that 
the issue of burdensomeness was something that needed  to be considered as one of the elements in the 
future disciplines.  He added that India would be prepared to implement any disciplines it would agree 
to.  On standards of compliance, he said that the choice between best-endeavour or mandatory rules 
would depend on the kind of elements Members agreed on in the disciplines.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 19 
 
 
 115. He said that the specific questions on qua lification requirements and procedures would 
probably be best addressed under the Matrix, as ma ny of these elements also appeared under other 
proposals.  He added that some of the questions po sed by Chinese Taipei possibly referred to the first 
draft of the paper and that they had been addressed  in the revised version that was on the table. 
116. The Chairman  invited the Working Party to take note of the discussions on this paper and to 
revert to it at the next meeting. 
117. The Working Party took note . 
Proposal by Switzerland for Disciplines on Technical Standards  
118. The Chairman  introduced a paper from Switzerland entitled, entitled Proposal for Disciplines 
on Technical Standards in Services , and circulated as S/WPDR/W/32 dated 1 February 2005.  He 
recalled that at the meeting of 31 March 2005, Swit zerland responded to the questions raised at the 
February meeting, and afterwards circulated their response in writing for Members’ information.  At 
the meeting of 2 May 2005, there was some further discussion of the Swiss Proposal.  He invited Switzerland to make some introductory comments on their paper. 
119. The representative of Switzerland
, considering time constraints, suggested that Members 
revert to the issues raised in their paper under the item devoted to discussions on the Matrix.  She 
added that the discussions with ISO, which took place at that meeting had been very beneficial for the 
Swiss proposal on technical standards. 
120. The representative of the United States  wondered about the challenges posed by the practical 
application of the Swiss proposal and said that Members should be careful in determining if TBT 
principles could be applicable to the services area.   She also cautioned against comparisons between 
the concepts of necessity in goods and in Article VI :4 and about using the rule of proportionality, on 
which there was no consensus.  Regarding the app licability of VI:4 to specific commitments, she 
recalled that on this issue there was also no c onsensus among Members.  She suggested that, once 
delegations started discussing the Swiss proposals in  more depth, or any other proposal involving 
technical standards, they would consult with thei r TBT experts in order to avoid importing concepts 
that are not suited to the services area and not to frustrate the work in both areas. 
121. The representative of South Africa  expressed concerns about the issue of conformity checks 
in paragraph 18 of the Swiss paper and pointed out th at standards in one context could be completely 
inappropriate or irrelevant in another one.  Rega rding the fact that developing countries may not be 
able to live up to certain standard s, she noted that sometimes the sta ndards set were irrelevant to the 
context in which developing countries were operati ng.  For instance, in banking services, banks 
required customers to have an address to better de termine their identity, but in South Africa most 
people, especially in rural areas, did not have an address, as their neighbours knew them and this was 
enough to confirm where they lived and determine their identity.  
122. The representative of Mexico  agreed that caution was required when discussing the 
applicability of TBT concepts to services, but emphasised the importance of technical barriers to trade 
in services as in goods and the necessity of having rules in this area as part of the Article VI:4 
disciplines.  He pointed out that international st andards presented similar challenges in services as in 
goods and were often formulated by the same agenci es domestically and internationally (such as the 
ISO).  He agreed with the United States that cl ose consultations with TBT experts when addressing 
technical standards was a good idea. 
123. The representative of Chinese Taipei  expressed appreciation for the responses in writing to 
Members' comments circulated by Switzerland, wh ich offered possible answers to the questions S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 20  
 
 raised at the last formal meeting.  However, she said that having read the replies carefully her 
delegation still had some reservations on some of th e points made in the Swiss proposal.  She noted, 
for example, that the paper was based on adopting, almost in its entirety, the concept of technical 
standards as contained in the TBT Agreement.  Her delegation was of the view that under the GATS it 
was necessary to draw a distinction between techni cal standards and technical regulations, especially 
in light of the fact that standards in the TBT Agreement covered voluntary standards only. 
124. Regarding paragraph 14 of Switzerland's propo sal on the "scope of application", her 
delegation supported, in principle, the view th at Members should ensure that non-governmental 
standardizing bodies within their territories be in compliance with the proposed disciplines, in the 
interests of predictability and clarity in interna tional trade in services.  Nonetheless, her delegation 
would have appreciated if the Swiss delegation could have provided some examples of what 
"reasonable measures" could be as far as services were concerned. 
125. She noted that although the Swiss delegation a ppeared not to agree, her delegation thought 
that technical standards may overlap with qualif ication requirements under the GATS.  Although it 
was true that services, like goods in the TBT context, could also raise concerns with respect to safety, 
Members should bear in mind that services techni cal standards could invol ve a number of other 
concerns, such as uniformity (to be able to share information both domestically  and internationally), 
ethics (which may or may not be specific to a particular region or country), or quality.  She stressed that failure to take such overlapping elements into account at this stage might lead to future 
difficulties in assessing the trade restrictiveness of th e standard, or evaluating whether the standard 
constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade in services. 
126. The representative of Korea
 said that her delegation was reviewing carefully this proposal by 
Switzerland and emphasized the importance of para graph 23 creating a rebuttable presumption that 
technical standards in accordance with relevant international standards did not create unnecessary 
obstacles to international trade. 
127. The representative of Malaysia  recalled that at an informal m eeting, with respect to the Swiss 
proposal on technical standards, her delegation had ra ised issues related to the limited development of 
technical standards in services, lack of involveme nt of developing countri es in standard setting 
international bodies, capacity and resource constraints of developing countries. 
128. The representative of China  said that it was unclear what international technical standard in 
services referred to in this proposal.  He argued that to make the scope and requirements of 
international standards clear, those should be defi ned clearly.  His delegation was concerned about the 
requirement to use international standards in paragraph 20, because it might be excessively 
burdensome. 
129. The representative of Australia  stated that the Swiss paper set quite ambitious goals and 
raised a number of complex technical issues that his delegation was still considering and consulting 
domestically.  His delegation was also consider ing whether applying TBT concepts, as the Swiss 
paper did, was appropriate in the GATS context a nd would revert to the Swiss proposal at later 
meetings. 
130. The representative of Norway  supported, in principle, the Swiss proposal, but expressed some 
concern regarding the regulation of non-government al standards in paragraph 9, equivalency in 
paragraph 19 and interna tional harmonization in paragraphs 20 to  23.  He reserved the right of his 
delegation to come back with more detailed co mments on this proposal at subsequent meetings. 
131. The representative of Switzerland  first replied to a question from Chinese Taipei who had 
argued that technical standards and qualification requirements overlapped in  national regulations.   S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 21 
 
 
 Switzerland agreed with this statement, but pointed out that in national regulations there were specific 
aspects of technical standards relevant to the discussi ons in the Working Party.  Regarding ethics, she 
said that this was a very complex issue where more work was necessary.  Regarding the TBT 
Agreement definitions of "mandatory technical re gulations" and "voluntary standards" and the GATS 
single concept of "technical standards" she noted  that in their proposal, mandatory and voluntary 
standards would receive the same treatment unless otherwise specified.  Her delegation, however, was 
not opposed to adding a Code of Good Practice for voluntary standards in their proposal.  Finally, regarding the use of international standards, she emphasised the importance of basing domestic 
regulations on international standards and pointed  out that the rebuttable presumption of "necessity" 
for regulations in accordance with in ternational standards in paragraph 23 was also used in the TBT 
Agreement.  She brought to Members' attention th at the reference in paragraph 23 to paragraph 3 
should be corrected as referring to paragraph 15. 
132. The Chairman
 invited the Working Party to take note of the discussions on this paper and to 
revert to it at the next meeting. 
Paper by Colombia on Visa Procedures  
133. The Chairman  introduced a paper from Colombia entitled Examples of Measures Relating to 
Administrative Procedures for Ob taining Visas or Entry Permits  and circulated as S/WPDR/W/29 
dated 7 July 2004.  He recalled that Members had made comments at the previous meeting of the 
Working Party on this paper, followed by respon ses from Colombia.  He invited Colombia to make 
some introductory comments on their paper. 
134. The representative of Colombia  said that when they had approached business people in 
Colombia to find out what were the main obstacles to trade in services, they had found out that visas 
rather than Article XVI-type measures, were the ma in obstacles.  The granting of a visa could take 
longer than 12 months, which might seriously im pede the possibility of doing business abroad for 
service suppliers.  The objective of their proposals was to address this type of  obstacle to services 
trade.  He recalled that this proposal had led to a related proposal they had submitted to the Special 
Session of the Council for Trade in Services togeth er with the Philippines and Peru, where they 
suggested that measures relating to visa and work permits fell within the negotiating mandate of 
Article VI:4 of the GATS.  He concluded that hi s delegation would continue  pursue negotiations on 
these themes. 
135. The representative of th e European Communities  said that his delegation believed that this 
Working Party should not address questions falling outside the scope  of the five categories of 
Article VI:4 of the GATS, such as visa procedures. 
136. The representative of the United States  echoed the intervention by the European Communities 
recalling that it was a long standing position of his delegation that visas were not covered by the 
GATS, although he recognized that there were many other aspects of a country's entry regime that 
could be subject to disciplines. 
137. The representative of Colombia  took note of the comments made by the European 
Communities and by the United States. 
138. The Chairman  invited the Working Party to take note of he discussions on this paper and to 
revert to it at the next meeting. 
 
 S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 22  
 
 Informal Note by the Secretariat – Matrix of Current WPDR Proposals for Regulatory  Disciplines
 
139. The Chairman  introduced an informal Note by the Secretariat entitled Matrix of Current 
WPDR Proposals for Regulatory Disciplines  and circulated as room document dated 16 June 2005.  
He recalled that at the last informal meeting he ld on 2 May 2005, Members had proposed that the 
Secretariat prepare a matrix of proposals made thus  far by Members, to facilitate Members’ awareness 
and understanding of the proposals on the table.  Such a matrix was not intended to be any kind of 
formal negotiating basis for future work.  He pointed  out that the Matrix prep ared by the Secretariat 
contained only proposals made by Members and did not include texts from other communications by 
Members.  The Matrix had been prepared under the Secretariat’s own responsibility and without 
prejudice to the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. 
140. He further emphasized that the sole purpose of th is Matrix was to provide a helpful tool for 
the Working Party's discussions on issues relati ng to the development of disciplines under GATS 
Article VI:4, by placing in an informal document th e texts of proposals made to date in the Working 
Party by Members, together with the relevant provisions of the Accountancy Disciplines.   No changes 
to the substance of Members' submissions had been  made.  Due to the difference in structure among 
the submissions,  in  transposing each proposal to the Matrix, allocation of the various elements had 
involved a certain degree of initial judgement .  At the request of Members, the Matrix could be 
updated with new proposals and/or revi sions to existing proposals.  He also asked Members if, in their 
intervention, they could indicated what  they wanted to do with the Matrix. 
141. He then asked the Secretaria t to introduce the Matrix. 
142. A representative of the Secretariat  noted that before circulation to all Members of the WTO a 
draft of the Matrix had been circulated to tho se Members whose proposals had been included in it for 
their comments and that all those comments had been re flected in the final version.  He said that the 
advantage of the Matrix was to have all the pr oposals in one single document.  He added that 
Members' proposals had been listed in the Matrix si de-by-side with the Accountancy Disciplines as all 
the proposals had some relationship to the Accountan cy Disciplines.  Regarding the translation of the 
Matrix, he said that it could be translated into Fr ench and Spanish without having to convert it into a 
Job Number or formal document. 
143. The representative of the European Communities  found the document very useful and hoped 
that no delegation would object to its translation.  He said that some adjustments might have to be 
made concerning the position of some elements.  For instance paragraph 16 to 19 of the EC proposal 
would be better placed under "rejec tions" than under "administrative decisions", where they appeared 
in  the Matrix.  He noted that there was a subh eading in the Matrix for "fees" under "licensing 
requirements", while in the view of his delega tion fees were mainly concerned with licensing 
procedures. 
144. The representative of India  said that while the Matrix was not a negotiating tool, it was a 
useful working document that brought all proposals together and which, by allowing comparison 
among the proposals, highlighted a fair amount of commonality.   
145. The representative of Brazil  stated that the Matrix was an information tool and not a 
negotiating tool and that his delegation would appreciate if the Secretariat could translate it as a non paper.  Clearly the Matrix did not determine a freezing of countries' positions on the texts of the 
proposals.  Brazil and the other co-sponsors, for inst ance were improving the text of their proposals, 
based on internal consultations. 
146. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 said that the Matrix simply reflected the proposals 
that remained the basis for the negotiations.  It woul d be useful if the Matrix could be translated and  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 23 
 
 
 updated to reflect any changes requested by the pr oponents of the proposals as well as new proposals.  
Like India, he noted that the Matrix highlighted commonalities among the proposals. 
147. He then commented on the reactions at past in formal meetings to the proposal his delegation 
had co-sponsored together with Chile, Korea, Switzerland Chinese Taipei and Thailand on the 
Application of Regulatory Disciplines to Different  Levels of Governments and Non-Governmental 
Bodies.  He noted that there did not seem to be any disagreement on the fact that in principle the 
regulatory disciplines should apply to all levels  of government and non-governmental bodies with 
delegated authority, which corresponded to the defin ition of measures in Article I(3)(a) of the GATS.  
The concepts provided for in the paper provided a starting point for discussing the exact meaning of 
delegated authority, without providing a final de finition of it.  He noted that developing an 
understanding of the reach of the disciplines would also  be useful in terms of developing the specific 
elements of the disciplines themselves.  Regarding the issue of burdensomeness he agreed with India 
that it affected all elements in the proposals and cal led for further reflection.  Whether the disciplines 
should be binding or best-endea vour depended on the overall package of disciplines Members could 
agree to at the end of the negotiations.  He conc luded by saying that while his delegation was not 
wedded to any particular language at that stage, it felt that the overall objective should be to ensure 
that at least the level of transparency matched the application of the scope of the regulatory disciplines 
(to all levels of government and non-governmental  bodies with delegated authority).  His delegation 
remained open to discussing with other Members how to improve the operational elements to reflect 
such an objective. 
148. The representative of Japan  agreed with the previous speaker s on the nature of the Matrix.  
She also suggested that it would have been usef ul to discuss the different proposals item-by-item 
based on the Matrix.  Japan wished to have horizon tal disciplines covering all the five elements in 
Article VI:4 and believed that discussions based on  the Matrix did not prejudge the outcome of 
discussions in the Working Party. 
149. The representative of Korea  agreed with Japan that it woul d have been useful to discuss the 
different proposals item-by-item and that discussions based on the Matrix did not prejudge the 
outcome of discussions in the Working Party.  Sh e also supported the translation of the Matrix. 
150. The representative of Australia  found the Matrix a useful tool to develop disciplines on an 
horizontal or sectoral basis and that, as such, it did not prejudge the outcome of discussions in the 
Working Party. 
151. The representative of Switzerland  found the Matrix a useful documents and agreed with 
previous delegations that it should be regarded as a "living" document to be updated based on changes 
to the proposals and on the introduction of new proposals. 
152. She noted that several elements of c onvergence among the proposals emerged from the 
Matrix.  First, it seemed to be undisputed in the proposals that disciplines should apply to measures 
relating to the five elements liste d under Article VI:4.  Second, th e disciplines needed to strike a 
balance between the right of Members to adopt  and implement domestic regulations deemed 
necessary to pursue national policy objectives and ensuring that such measures did not constitute 
unnecessary barriers to trade in services.  Third, th e proposals made clear that it was not the purpose 
of these disciplines to formulate the substance of any regulation, nor to introduce any harmonisation 
of domestic regulations (in this respect she noted that harmonisation was impor tant but that it should 
be handled through the development and adoption of  international standards).  Fourth, there was a 
convergence of views that nothing in the di sciplines should prevent Members from availing 
themselves of the rights granted under the exceptions cl auses.  Fifth, the proponents of the proposals 
seemed to be quite comfortable with the idea of developing horizontal disciplines, while not closing 
the door for sector specific complements.  Sixth, there seems to be a tr end towards disciplines S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 24  
 
 applying to different levels of government.  Seventh, her delega tion also saw commonalities in the 
proposals on transparency issues, such as making measures, covered by the disciplines, publicly 
available, to provide information on request, to provide the opportunity of interested parties to 
comment, to allow for a reasonable time period be tween the publication of measures and their 
entering into force, etc. 
153. She also noted that while elements of conve rgence emerged from the proposals, there were 
also issues that needed further clarification.  Among these she listed:  the way disciplines would cover 
all modes of supply;  the relationship between li mitations covered by Articles XVI and XVII and the 
measures relating to the five elements of Article VI :4;  the fact that most proposals did not mention 
special and differential treatment (S&D) (although th ere were not many divergences in the proposals 
made on S&D);  the issue of national policy objectives. 
154. She pointed out that that the proposals on the elements themselves usually appeared to be 
more detailed in the specific submissions than in the horizontal papers.  Concluding, she suggested 
that in order to expedite work, Members should c onsider proceeding by subject area rather than 
proposal-by-proposal, as this would bring to the forefront of discussions of each subject the 
proponents of a relevant element. 
155. The representative of Bolivia
 said that while the Matrix did not constitute a basis for 
negotiations it was a useful tool to organize future  discussions.  Her delegations also agreed that the 
Matrix be translated in French and Spanish. 
156. The representative of China  found the Matrix a useful tool for discussions and believed that it 
should remain open to any new input. 
157. The representative of Chinese Taipei  agreed with previous speaker s that the Matrix was very 
useful in that it outlined commonality among the propo sals.  She asked clarification on what item-by-
item discussion would exactly mean. 
158. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation needed to consult on whether 
they could go forward with the Matrix and w ould come back to the Chairman on whether her 
delegation would agree to keep their proposal in the Matrix.  She pointed out that in the view of her 
delegation the Matrix brought together texts that  did not appear to be comparable under single 
headings.  This comment was also relevant for th e inclusion of the Accountancy Disciplines, which 
was a sectoral instrument.  Finally, in spite of  all the assurances given by other delegations, her 
delegation remained concerned about the possible u ses of the Matrix and looked forward to informal 
consultation on this matter. 
159. The representative of the Dominican Republic  agreed with previous speakers that the Matrix 
was a useful tool that should not prejudge the outco me of discussions in the Working Party.  She also 
supported the translation of the Matrix in all the official languages and keeping it open to revised and 
new proposals. 
160. The representative of Rwanda  said the her delegation found the Matrix very useful,  
especially for Members of African Group and the LDCs Group, who were not able to participate to all 
meetings in the negotiations, as it made it easier to refer to all the proposals submitted.  As it was not 
a closed document she expected that future contri butions by these groups would be reflected in it. 
161. The representative of South Africa  reserved the right of her delegation to come back on the 
meaning of the Matrix as she had not yet recei ved any comments from capitals on this matter.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 25 
 
 
 162. The Chairman  invited the Working Party to take note of the comments made and said that he 
would hold informal consultation on the use of the Matrix. 
163. The Working Party took note . 
ISO Presentation on Technical Standards  
164. The Chairman  recalled that at the meeting of 2 May 2005 the discussion of the Swiss 
Proposal on technical standards had focused on th e relevance of the TBT Agreement and on the 
application of disciplines to federal and sub-fe deral levels of governme nt. Members had also 
suggested that, at the next formal meeting of  the WPDR, the International Organisation for 
Standardization (ISO) be invited to make a presen tation on its work, and its relevance for the WPDR 
discussions on technical standards.   He, therefore, invited Mr. Alan Bryden,  the Secretary General of 
the ISO, to make a presentation on the work of the ISO. 
165. Mr. Bryden  recalled that this was not the first tim e ISO was collaborating with the WTO in 
this area as a few years earlier the ISO and th e WTO had organized four regional workshops on the 
subject of standards in services.  In the meantime there had been a dramatic evolution relating to the need for international standards in this area.  In his presentation Mr. Bryden proposed to update 
Members on recent trends in this area. 
166. He noted that technical regulations, nationa l consensus based standards and associated 
conformity assessment procedures may constitute de jure  or de facto  obstacles to cross frontier trade 
in services.  Such obstacles may relate to the conten t of services, their quality, safety and security, the 
impact on the environment, the qualification of staff, the necessity to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements, the information and commun ication associated with the delivery of services, 
the access to infrastructure and networks.  This had resulted in the growing production of national 
voluntary standards for services by ISO Members in Europe, the Americas, Australia and New Zealand and South East Asia, especially in the past five or six years.  Elements that had generated a growing need for inte rnational standards for services in cluded:  (i) the deregulation and 
privatization of public services in areas such as energy, transportation, telecoms, postal services, 
water;  (ii) the delocalization of the supply of so me services such as health services, IT assistance and 
call centres;  (iii) the pressure by consumers a nd citizens on quality, environment and safety, with a 
corresponding increase in consumer protection legisl ation covering services;  (iv) the expansion of 
web-based services such as tourism, financia l services, webstores and on-line purchasing. 
167. In this context the ISO system was playing an important role.  The ISO system was based on 
three pillars.  The first pillar was its Members.  The ISO was a non governmental organization which 
brought together 153 national members.  ISO Membersh ip had grown extensively in the recent years.  
Members provided technical inputs with experts fro m stakeholders involved in the standards being 
developed and had a role in disseminating the in ternational standards in their countries through 
publications, national adoptions, conformity assessme nts, training.  The second pillar was the ISO 
technical committees (177), and technical bodies (3000) bringing together more than 50,000 experts.  
The third pillar was the central ISO Secretaria t in Geneva, which was composed of 150 staff 
Members.  The ISO system was charged with de veloping the IT tools and procedures to develop 
consensus-based international standards in a wide spectrum of activities.  This work was based on a 
Code of Ethics (available thought the ISO website) which ensured that the ISO system complied with 
the six criteria set forth in the TBT Ag reement for an international standard. 
168. He said that in the previous year the ISO had updated its strategy a nd developed a strategic 
plan for the period 2005–2010 (also available thought the ISO website).  He referred to two of seven 
objectives included in this plan, where the issue of ser vices appeared for the first time officially.   The 
first objective concerned the scope of ISO, whic h was ready to develop standards in all areas S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 26  
 
 including services.  Another relevant objective related to the relationship between technical 
regulations and standards also in the area of serv ices.  Under this second objective the ISO promoted 
the use of voluntary standards as an alterna tive or as a support to technical regulations. 
169. He then cited some examples of services sect ors where the work of the ISO had been 
advancing in recent years though ad hoc  committees, including: tourism and related services, personal 
financial planning, water services, ma rket opinion and social research, clinical laboratories, quality of 
software development and quality in education and training. 
170. Another interesting phenomenon was the success of the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 series 
respectively on quality management and envir onmental management.  For the ISO 9001 around 
600,000 certificates had been issued in 2003, 30% of which related to services.  In the case of 
ISO 14001, 31% of all certificates issued related to services. 
171. Regarding conformity assessment, the ISO had de veloped a toolbox of standards to support 
the international recognition of conformity assessm ent procedures.  These standards, which in 
principle also applied to services, included:  ISO/IEC 17011:2004 on accreditation;  ISO/IEC Guides 65:1996, 28:2004, 53:2005 on product certification;  ISO/IEC 17024:2003 on the certification of 
persons;  ISO/IEC Guide 68:2002 on the mutual recognition arrangements;  and ISO/IEC Guide 
60:2004 relating to the code of good practice for conformity assessment. 
172. He concluded by saying the subject of services was central in ISO which at its General 
Assembly on 22 September 2005 in Singapore would hold an open session dedicated to promoting the 
development and use of international standards to improve quality and global trade in services. 
173. The Chairman
 noted among other points that it was interesting that the ISO was doing work 
on the tourism sector, which developing countries had highlighted as an area of interest in the WTO.  
He remarked also that it was notable that about one third of  all quality and environmental 
management standards were in the services area. 
174. The representative of Canada  enquired about the composition of the ISO sub-committees 
working on developing standards and how they d ecided where and when new services standards 
needed to be developed. 
175. Mr. Bryden  replied that ISO had procedures to decide on moving into a new area of work in 
order to set up a technical committee.  All decisi ons were based on national votes and the composition 
of the committee was both through national particip ation and organizations in liaison.  National 
participation was decided by ISO Members who cons ulted with their industry, public authorities and 
stakeholders at large and decided whether nati onal representatives would be "P" members (voting 
members) or observing members in the technical committee.  National members decided who would 
sit in the committee, although the ISO encouraged th at such delegations to technical committees be 
representative of the national stakeholders.  Intern ational organizations that  had liaisons with ISO 
technical committees also participated in the co mmittees.  He emphasised that the composition of 
technical committees and the selection of work items  was done through transparent procedures and by 
abiding to a code of ethics.  For instance, in the services sectors he had referred to earlier as current 
areas of work, the ISO had started work based on re quests from its constituencies to initiate work in 
such areas. 
176. The representative of Brazil  wondered whether licensing requirements and licensing 
procedures were covered by two of the ISO sta ndards referred to by Mr Bryden, ISO/IEC 17011:2004 
on accreditation and ISO/IEC 17024:2003 on the certification of persons.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 27 
 
 
 177. The representative of Pakistan  asked in which services sectors the quality standards 
certificates, which represented 30% of all qua lity standards certificates (ISO 9000 and 14000), had 
been issued. 
178. The representative of Mexico  posed several questions to Mr Bryden.  First, he asked what was 
the impact of the development of international st andards by ISO in the development of technical 
regulations by ISO Members.  Second, he wonde red if there was any distinction between the 
procedures applied by ISO for the elaboration of a standard relating to goods and those relating to 
services.  Third, he asked a question regarding the Code of Good Practice annexed to the TBT 
Agreement, which could be adopted by governme ntal and non-governmental standardizing bodies.  
He wondered whether any distinction was made be tween goods and services standards at the time an 
ISO standardizing body accepted the Code of G ood Practice, so that such a body could take 
reservations for services standards or, if in practi ce by adopting it, such a bod y would apply the rules 
of the TBT Code of Good Practice also to services st andards.  Fourth, he asked Mr. Bryden whether 
he thought that conformity assessment procedures of technical standards relating to services could 
have the same impact on services tr ade than the standards themselves.   Finally, he wondered whether 
in the selection of more services sectors for the deve lopment of international standards in the future, 
the ISO was planning to follow the same principles used to select the sectors where ISO work was on-
going. 
179. Mr. Bryden  replied that on the subject of licensing, ISO standards and those developed by 
ISO Members are in general consensus-based volunt ary standards.  ISO 17011 and ISO 17024 are not 
greatly developed in the area of services, but are potentially very powerful tools to facilitate the 
international recognition of competence of peopl e.  Regarding the sectors where the ISO 9000 and 
14,000 certificates were issued, he said that this happened in numerous areas, including now many 
public services and services delegated by the public  authorities and/or privatized.  Health and 
associated services, engineering, services to industry in general, information technol ogy at large, etc.   
180. Regarding the questions posed by Mexico he first noted that the development of voluntary 
standards had an impact on the emergence of t echnical regulations relating to services, although no 
statistics were available on this issue.  Second, he said that important differences existed in the 
development of goods and services standards fo r instance because for mo st services physical 
measurements were not possible.  A different appro ach was therefore required to develop standards in 
services.  For instance, in ISO there was a cons umer policy committee which provided an interface 
with consumers representatives and which had a role on the development of services standards.  He 
further noted that the ISO was working on a guid e on how to develop standards for services.  
Regarding the question on conformity assessment procedures, he said that outsourcing was making 
assessment of conformity also relevant for services.  Examples of services regulated on the basis of voluntary standards and where conformity assessmen t could be relevant in cluded the labelling of 
websites, the security of signatures, the security of In ternet transactions.  Finally, he said that the ISO 
basic directives and procedures (initiation of work, selection of work items, voting, publication, etc.) 
applied to all areas of ISO work and would not ch ange for the selection of new areas of work in 
services. 
181. The representative of China
 asked a question regarding voluntary standards including those 
developed by professional associations with or wit hout delegated authority from the government.  He 
wondered whether the ISO was also working on how to make such voluntary standards less trade 
restrictive. 
182. The representative of Malaysia  said that in her country, professional service standards were 
set by professional bodies rather than by nationa l standardizing bodies so, if requirements were 
controlled by standardizing bodies rather than by professional bodies, how was it possible to reconcile 
the work of the ISO on service trade. S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 28  
 
 183. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 asked how the ISO evaluated the occurrence of technical 
obstacles to trade in services in parallel to th e risk assessment that w as undertaken for goods.  
Moreover, since in services trade technical standards sometimes overlapped with qualification and licensing requirements, she wondered what were th e criteria and the content the ISO 17024 for the 
certification of persons. 
184. In replying to the questions by China a nd Malaysia on professional service standards, 
Mr. Bryden
 said that the ISO ruled-based and transparen t process ensured that voluntary standards 
developed by professional associations did not cons titute technical barriers to trade.  Professional 
associations could participate in the ISO process though the national members of ISO or though an 
international organization.  He also informed Memb ers that the ISO had developed a plan of action for 
developing countries and participati on of developing countries was en couraged and facilitated in ISO 
technical committees.  Regarding the question posed by Chinese Taipei, he recalled that ISO work on 
services was only beginning and that services standa rds were voluntary.  Therefore, the work on 
services was still a few years behind the work in the goods area. 
185. The representative of Japan , as Mexico had done earlier, asked to what extent and how were 
ISO standards implemented into national techni cal regulations.  She also wondered how were 
conformity assessment procedures operated with respect  to ISO standards.  Finally, she asked whether 
Mr. Bryden could provide some clarifications on th e distinctions between licensing and qualification 
requirements and technical standards in the services area. 
186. The representative of th e European Communities  noted that, from Mr. Bryden's presentation, 
it had emerged that the scope of work of the ISO was broader than technical standards as defined in 
the GATS in that it also covered issues such as licen sing and qualifications.  He asked if Mr. Bryden 
could provide a practical example of a standards de veloped by ISO in a service sector, for instance on 
tourism. 
187. The representative of the United States  asked if for the purpose of  its work ISO had looked 
into GATS services classification categories (MTN.GNS/W/120 and UNCPC) or if not, what other 
categories ISO used to develop standards in servi ces.  She also wondered how much feedback from 
national organizations was ISO getting for its wo rk, as he had mentioned earlier that national 
organizations had not thus far become much invol ved in services work.  Regarding the certifications 
mentioned by Mr. Bryden she asked if there were any certifications of individuals as opposed to 
institutions.  Regarding the issue of consumer satis faction, she noted that the work of the WTO was 
more concerned with standards relating to the supply of the service rather than consumer satisfaction.  
She reiterated the point made by Malaysia relati ng to the difficulty of dealing with professional 
standard setting bodies with or w ithout delegated authority.  She finally asked if the ISO had any 
provisions or plans for capacity building for devel oping countries regarding specifically standards 
setting in services. 
188. The representative of the Philippines  asked a question concerning the action plan for 
developing countries 2005–2010.  He wondered if Mr. Bryden could briefly elaborate on key 
objective number 3, on regional cooperation and share e xperiences the ISO had had so far in this area.  
In this respect he noted the potential of regional c ooperation with a view to even formulating regional 
standards where appropriate. 
189. Mr. Bryden , responding to a question from Japan, reiterated that ISO standards were 
voluntary and that ISO Members could adopt ISO standards as national standards if they wished.  If 
Members chose to adopt nationally, the ISO had published a guidance document on how to adopt an 
ISO standard nationally.  Regarding the qualifi cation and competence of staff he said that ISO 
standards per se  were not certification procedures but tec hnical documents to which it was possible to 
refer to describe the competence and the qualifica tions of an individual or a company.  Assessing  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 29 
 
 
 compliance with ISO standards was not within the realm of ISO, it was for the market or public 
authorities.  Regarding the question by the European  Communities on a practical example of a service 
standard, he noted that the work on tourism, which was at the outset, had among its priorities 
standards relating to security and safety, hygiene, accessibility to tourism locations and defining sustainable tourism. 
190. He further noted that in the area of services there were a number of international professional 
associations which had developed their own standard s.  Some of these international associations had 
relations with ISO as they saw the benefits of the ISO system based on its re lationships with national 
members and stakeholders.  Concerning the classi fication systems, he said that ISO had its own 
international classification system for categoriz ing its standards, based on the international 
classification system (ICS).  He pointed out that ISO monitored feedback from the national level and 
that national standards in services were growing in numbers and in many areas it appeared that international standards could be developed shortly.  Concerning the certifications of the competence 
of staff, he said that work in this area was onl y starting because, in order to certify the competence of 
staff, it was necessary to have technical standards d escribing the contents of the staff qualifications.  
Finally, in relation to de veloping countries he said that for the moment, considering the less advanced 
status of work in services, most efforts were made  in the goods area.  He noted, however, that special 
attention had been paid to developing countries issu es in ISO work on water and tourism standards.  
On the regional dimension, he recalled that ther e were seven regions which had organized regional 
cooperation in the area of standardization and that the ISO had formal relatio ns and cooperation with 
these regions. 
191. The Chairman
 thanked Mr. Bryden for addressing the Wo rking Party on the work of the ISO 
and invited Members to take note of the discussions on this item. 
192. The Working Party took note . 
Secretariat Examples Paper  
193. As no delegation intervened under this ite m due to time constraints, the Chairman  suggested 
that Members revert to Secretariat's paper on Examples of Measures to be Addressed by Disciplines 
under  GATS Article VI:4  at the next meeting. 
(ii) Development of Disciplines for Professional Services 
Secretariat Consultations  
194. The Chairman  recalled that regarding the Secretaria t's consultations with international 
professional organizations, the most recent compilation of comments received had been circulated as 
JOB(03)/126/Rev.5, dated 28  January 2005.  He informed delega tions that some additional comments 
had been received too late to update the paper before  the meeting.  He therefore asked the Secretariat 
to summarize these comments. 
195. A representative of the Secretariat stated th at while many comments had been promised, few 
had actually been received.  Comments had b een received from the World Union of Professions, 
while outstanding requests were with other interna tional organizations indicated by Members.  He 
said that the Secretariat would update the paper with comments as soon as those were received. 
196. As no delegation intervened under this ite m due to time constraints, the Chairman  suggested 
that Members revert to this item at the next meeting. 
 S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 30  
 
 Secretariat Synthesis  paper
 
197. The Chairman  asked delegations if they had any comments on the Secretariat's Synthesis of 
Results to date of the Domestic Consultations in Professional Services , circulated as 
JOB/(02)/204/Rev.1, dated 21 February 2003. 
198. As no delegation intervened under this ite m due to time constraints, the Chairman  suggested 
that Members revert this items at the next meeting. 
D. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 
199. As part of the usual practice of holding meeti ngs in parallel with the other meetings of the 
services cluster, the Chairman  suggested that the next meeting be held during the first week of the 
services cluster in September. 
200. The Working Party so agreed . 
E. OTHER BUSINESS 
201. The Chairman  raised a point concerning possible next steps for the Working Party.  He noted 
that there was good momentum in the WPDR wo rk, as numerous proposals and communications had 
been tabled.  He encouraged Members to keep up this momentum by submitting more proposals, 
particularly developing countries.  He also encourag ed more active participation from all Members.  
He recalled the primary objectives of the Working Party as they had emerged from consultations with 
Members, i.e., to develop disciplines which helped Memb ers’ exporters.  Some Members had also 
referred to the need for domestic coordination be tween trade ministries and regulating agencies, so 
that the disciplines would not impinge unduly on regulatory autonomy and were in keeping with the Preamble of GATS.  He reminded delegations of the milestones ahead and in particular the Sixth 
Ministerial Conference of December 2005. 
202. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 suggested that, considering the importance of this 
subject and the very limited time available at this  meeting, the question of the way forward for this 
Working Party be also included in the Chairman's open informal consultations .  Delegations agreed 
with the suggestion made by Hong Kong, China. 
203. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that at the informal meeting of 2 May 2005 her 
delegation had tabled Job Number (05)68 to speed  up the discussion in the Working Party and to 
facilitate the dialogue and process with the regulators.   A very similar purpose to that of the Matrix, 
she noted.  Having carefully listened to comments by Members in the informal meeting her delegation 
was continuing consultations bilatera lly and would be available to e ngage in consultations with any 
delegation on any matter in this document. 
204. The Chairman  said he would undertake consultations on all the relevant maters raised and 
closed the meeting.  S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 31 
 
 
 Attachment 1  
 Working Party on Domestic Regulation 
22 June 2005 
 
Informal Meetings on 31 March and 2 May 2005
 
 
Report by the Chairman2 
 1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation held informal meetings on 31 March and 
2 May 2005. The purpose of these meetings was to have fuller discussion of the four new proposals 
and papers tabled at the Working Party meeting of  7 and 18 February and ot her subsequent papers, 
and to discuss future steps. 
Communication from Switzerland (S/WPDR/W/ 32): Proposal for Disciplines on Technical 
Standards in Services 
 
205. At the meeting of 31 March, Switzerland responde d to the questions that had been raised 
about this paper at the February meeting, and circulated this response in writing for Members’ 
information. The questions posed mostly covered: the scope of possible disciplines; the meaning and 
effect of "legitimate national policy objectives"; th e question of equivalence; the relevance of 
international standards; the meaning of "significant effect",  "conformity checks", and "state of the 
art"; and regulatory impact assessments. In the ensuing debate the main areas for discussion were: 
scope; delegated authority; legitimate or nationa l policy objectives; transparency, special and 
differential treatment, regulatory impact assessme nt; and international standards (requirements: 
voluntary, obligatory or best endeavour, and practical  application); and the relevance or otherwise of 
the TBT agreement.  
206. At the meeting of 2 May there was some further discussion of the Swiss Proposal, in 
particular the relevance or otherwise of the TB T agreement; and the application of disciplines to 
federal and sub-federal levels of government. Members also suggested th at at the next formal meeting 
of the WPDR, ISO (the International Organisati on for Standardization) be invited to make a 
presentation on its work, and its relevance for the WPDR discussions on technical standards.  
Communication from Chile, India, Mexico, Pa kistan and Thailand (JOB(05/50): Proposed 
Elements for Disciplines on Qualific ation Requirements and Procedures 
 
207. At the meeting of 31 March, Bolivia announced that they would join the co-sponsors of this 
proposal, which had been revised since the February  meeting. India, on behalf of the co-sponsors, 
responded to questions that had been put in the February meeting. These covered: deficiency 
requirements, harmonisation exam, exam requirements, language issues, and professional 
competence.  India also indicated where the text ha d been revised in the light of comments from other 
WTO Members.  In the debate which followed the ma in areas for discussion were:  level of obligation 
(mandatory, voluntary of best endeavour); scope  (scheduled commitments, horizontal versus 
sectoral); residency requirements; levels of government  (central, federal, sub-federal); and cost versus 
benefits of obligations.  
                                                     
 
2 This report is made on the Chair’s own res ponsibility, and has been written simply to help 
delegations follow the informal debates of the Wo rking Party since its last formal meeting.  S/WPDR/M/30 
Page 32  
 
 208. This proposal was not discussed at the meeting of 2 May in the absence of the Indian 
delegate. But the Working Party left open the possib ility of holding another informal meeting before 
the June cluster, if required. 
Proposal by the United States (Room Docume nt): Horizontal Transparency Disciplines in 
Domestic Regulation 
 
209. At the meeting of 31 March, the US responded to questions that had been put in the February 
meeting. These covered: regulations of general application; plain language; reasonable; written 
substantive comments; footnotes; and immigration/M ode IV. In the debate which followed the main 
areas for discussion were: prior comment; notification requirements; Mode IV; Special and 
Differential Treatment; Scope/Application; and the cost versus benefit of obligations.  
210. At the meeting of 2 May the US introduced a re vised text. The main changes covered: best 
endeavour language for LDCs, more open scope on examina tion requirement and on the 
implementation "instrument", and confirmation th at the disciplines covered both central and sub-
central level of government, and all five Article VI :4 elements. The US offered to provide a "track 
change" version of the proposal to aid delegations’ understanding of the changes. In the debate that 
followed, the main areas for discussion covered: the definition of technical standards; the meaning of 
"address substantive comments in writing", "general application", and "military"; and S+DT. The US 
indicated that it would be happy to provide furt her background behind its use of certain terms.  
Communication from Brazil, Colombia, Domini can Republic, Peru and the Philippines (Room 
Document): Elements for Draft Disci plines on Domestic Regulation 
 
211. At the meeting of 31 March, The Philippines, on behalf of the co-sponsors, responded to 
questions that had been raised in the February m eeting. These covered: the right to regulate; Special 
and Differential Treatment; Mode IV; necessity; and le vels of government. In the debate that followed 
(which was limited due to lack of time) the main  areas for discussion were: necessity; national policy 
objectives/the right to regulate; Mode IV; and use of Treaty language.  
212. At the meeting of 2 May the cosponsors introduced a revised version of this proposal. The 
main changes covered: the right to regulate, M ode IV, the removal of language on "necessity" and 
"reasonable" and S+DT. The co-sponsors offered to circ ulate a "track change" version of the text. In 
the debate that followed, the main areas for discu ssion included: the right to regulate; technical 
standards; "necessity"; Mode IV coverage; c oncessional fees for LDCs; S+DT; voluntary versus 
compulsory standards, the relevance of the SPS an d TBT agreement, and ob ligations versus best 
endeavours.  
At the meeting of 2 May, two new papers were submitted: 
 
Communication from Chile; Hong Kong Chin a; Korea; Switzerland; Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen a nd Matsu; and Thailand (Room Document): 
Application of Regulatory Disciplines to Different Levels of Government and Non-Governmental Bodies  
 
213. Hong Kong China, on behalf of the co-sponsor s, introduced this document, which the co-
sponsors saw as supplementary to other proposals put fo rward. In the debate which followed, the main 
areas for discussion were: the relationship with ma rket access; the meaning of "reasonable"; binding 
obligations versus best endeavour; a nd cost burdens versus benefits.   S/WPDR/M/30 
 Page 33 
 
 
 Communication from Switzerland (JOB(05)/68: In itial elements for Modalities for negotiations 
on Disciplines on Domestic Regulation 
 
214. Switzerland introduced this paper, and stressed that it was being put forward in a spirit of 
flexibility to assist the work of the Working Party. In response, some delegations welcomed the paper, 
arguing that it would allow the debate to move on to a more ambitious stage. Others were more 
cautious, arguing that elements of the paper were perhaps premature.  
I. NEXT STEPS 
215. At both the meeting on 31 March and 2 May there was discussion of next steps. As Chair, I 
recalled Members’ primary objectives for the Wo rking Party, as I understood them from earlier 
consultations: to develop disciplines which helped Members' exporters and which helped Members' 
good governance objectives. I noted the overall WTO work plan, with July 2005, the Hong Kong Ministerial and the end of the Round as key milestones.  
216. In response Members agreed that  as an initial next step, the Secretariat should draw up a 
matrix of proposals put forward thus far. This in formal document would be open to further proposals, 
and would of course not prejudice Members' pos itions, or the substance of negotiations.  
II. SOME CONCLUSIONS, AND SOME COMMON THEMES 
217. As Members will see from the above report, there are a number of common themes that 
emerge from the discussion of the individual pape rs and proposals put thus far. These common 
themes include: the scope of possible disciplines; the application of such disciplines, in particular the 
question of federal and sub-federa l levels of government; definitions ; binding versus best endeavour 
obligations; costs versus benefits of obligations; special and differe ntial treatment; and the relevance 
of other agreements, such as the TBT Agreement.  
__________