RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/CSC/M/57 
5 April 2011 
 (11-1695) 
Committee on Specific Commitments   
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 MARCH 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
 
1. The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 10 March 2011, chaired 
by Ms. Natalie Burke from Barbados.  The agenda for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/3708, was 
adopted.  
A. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
2. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had agreed to carry out informal discussions on 
classification issues raised in the Secretariat's se ctoral Background Notes.  Such discussions would 
start with computer and related services (CRS) at this meeting.  For this purpose, the Secretariat had prepared an informal Note (JOB/SERV/39) providi ng an overview of classification issues relevant to 
this sector.  Due to the application of new technologies, much had changed in the CRS sector since W/120 had been created in 1991.  The trends in  the sector presented challenges to the current 
classification of CRS. The Secretariat Note sugg ested questions for Members' consideration. 
Members might also raise additional or alternative questions and points as they wished.  As agreed, 
the discussion would be conducted in informal mode to facilitate exchange of views, and after the 
meeting, an informal, non-attributable summary  would be circulated to delegations under her 
responsibility.  She invited the Secretariat to introduce the Note. 
3. The representative of the Secretariat
 stated that the Note drew upon some of the classification 
issues raised in the Secretariat' s sectoral Background Notes on CRS with a view to facilitating 
discussions in the Committee.  It provided possibl e questions for consideration relating to certain 
trends that had had a bearing on classification issues, such as new technologies and convergence 
among CRS themselves and with telecommunications .  The Annex to the Note illustrated the 
correspondence across different classification systems.  The Note also referred to the Understanding 
proposed by a group of Members because it was relevant to the issues under discussion.  
4. The Chairperson  opened the floor for informal discussions. 
5. Noting the fact that the Secretariat Note had been circulated a week ago, the Chairperson 
thought that delegations might need more time to reflect on the Note and consult with experts on CRS 
in capital.  She suggested that the Committee continue to discuss cl assifications issues related to CRS 
at its next meeting.   
6. In order to undertake a meaningful examination of classification issues in various sectors, she 
had held extensive consultations with delegations.  An idea that had been widely supported by 
delegations was that after a sector had been consid ered by the Committee, the Chairperson might hold 
further consultations on any outstanding issues with  interested Members.  Any Member that had 
                                                      
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/CSC/M/57 
Page 2  
 
  expressed its interest in joining further discussi ons would be included in the consultations. The 
Secretariat might provide further assistance if needed .  For transparency purposes, the result of such 
consultations, including any unde rstanding or recommendation that might be emerging from the 
small-group discussion, would be reported back to the Committee.  She inv ited Members to comment 
on this idea. 
7. The representative of Australia
 recognized the value in having a more detailed discussion on 
classification issues in small groups consisting of in terested Members.  Such discussion would lead to 
a better understanding, and potentially in some cases,  to solutions. She also saw the merits in 
including the Secretariat in this process, given the expe rtise the Secretariat had in this regard.  It was 
also a good idea for the small group to report back to the Committee.  She therefore supported the 
Chairperson's suggestion which w ould help delegations address classification issues in a meaningful 
way.   
8. The representative of Brazil  stated that his delegation could go along with the proposal for 
having small group consultations.  However, anything that might emerge from the Chairperson's 
consultations should not be considered as Members' expectation for an agreement.  While recognizing 
Members' right to have such consultations, his dele gation reserved its right to disagree with the results 
of the consultations.   
9. The Chairperson  noted Members' willingness to proceed with small group consultations as the 
follow-up of informal discussions in the Committee.  She assured that the results of such consultations 
would be reported back to the Committee for transpar ency purposes.   In consulting with delegations 
on which sector should be discussed after CRS, some delegations had suggested a "cluster approach" 
so as to examine closely linked sectors together.  She wished to hear delegations' views on this 
proposal.  
10. The representatives of Australia , United States , European Union , Japan , New Zealand , 
Chinese Taipei  and Malaysia  all saw the merits in the proposed approach to examine related sectors 
together as this might be practical and efficient.  They were also flexible and could agree to examine 
sectors individually.  Australia , European Union , Japan,  New Zealand , Chinese Taipei  and Malaysia  
suggested that environmental services could be the ne xt sector to be discussed in the Committee.     
11. The representative of Turkey  said that her delegation was in favor of examining sectors 
individually for the time being as they could not foresee the possible implications of the proposed cluster approach for the existing classification.  She supported the idea of examining environmental 
services after CRS.  
12. The representative of India
 said that he needed to consult w ith his capital as to how to proceed 
with the discussion in the Committee.  
13. The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee conti nue to discuss classification issues 
concerning CRS at its next meeting and that she hol d consultations on which sector would be the next 
one to be discussed.  She also suggested that th e Committee take note of the statements made and 
revert to this agenda item at the next meeting. 
14. It was so agreed .  
B. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OLD AND NEW COMMITMENT  
15. The Chairperson  recalled that in the past few years, the Committee had held substantive 
discussions on how the relationship between old and new commitments should be dealt with in the 
final protocol.  However, delegations remained divi ded on whether there was a need to include certain  S/CSC/M/57 
 Page 3 
 
 
  language in the protocol to prevent backtrackings  in new schedules, and it appeared that narrowing 
the gap between Members might not happen very soon unless there was a real urgency on this issue.  As part of the efforts to explore the scope fo r compromise, the Committee had started discussing 
procedural issues concerning the verification exer cise in September 2010.  The discussion had been 
based on an informal Note by the Secretaria t - "Roadmap for the Verification Exercise" 
(JOB/SERV/21 and JOB/SERV/21/Rev.1).  Having ta ken into account comments made at previous 
meetings, the Secretariat had circulated the second re vision of the Note (JOB/SERV/21/Rev. 2) with a 
view to facilitating further exchanges of views and assisting Members in reaching consensus on the 
verification process.  She invited th e Secretariat to introduce the Note. 
16. The representative of the Secretariat
 stated that the second revision of the roadmap had been 
prepared based on the discussion conducted at the last meeting.  Like the previous revision, it 
presented two scenarios (A and B) hinging in particular  on the timing of the adoption of the results of 
the negotiations in relation to the verification exercise.  Again, it did not contain any dates or time periods for the stages of the exercise.  The Note trie d to answer the questions raised at the last meeting 
such as how the processes in services would relate  to those in Agriculture and NAMA.  While 
hopefully the negotiations in all the areas would conclude at the same time, the nature and 
components of the services negotiations were differe nt from those in Agriculture and NAMA.  This 
point was made in the introductory part of the Note.  Footnote 2 of the Note mentioned what had been 
suggested in Agriculture and NAMA with respect to the submission of schedules and the verification 
exercise, which was quite similar to scenario B present ed in this Note.  Also, the Note ceased to use 
the term "rollback", but opted for "backtracking" in or der to avoid any confusion.  In paragraph 44 of 
the Scheduling Guidelines, the term "rollback" was u sed to refer to the binding of a more liberal 
situation.    
17. The representative of Australia
 noted that the purpose of the verification exercise was not just 
about making technical corrections, but also about ensuring that existing commitments would not be 
undermined.  Therefore, her delega tion continued to support scenario B,  i.e. verification before the 
adoption of the negotiating results.   This scenario  allowed for both technical verification and the 
prevention of backtrackings.  For this purposes, Members could hold bilateral and plurilateral 
consultations with a view to reaching agreement and what had been agreed upon would be reflected in 
the final schedules.  In contrast, scenario A was restricted only to technical verification with the Members concerned carrying out rectifications onl y when they deemed appropriate.  She supported 
the change of terms as suggested by the Secretariat.  In addition to the reason given by the Secretariat, 
she reiterated that there was no point in trying to  define what would constitute "rollback".   
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 stated that his delegation also had a clear preference 
for scenario B as it provided a better mechanism fo r Members to sort out potential backtracking 
problems.  His delegation's position on the verification exercise was without prejudice to its stance 
concerning the need for particular protocol language  which was indispensible to safeguard from any 
backtracking.   
19. The representative of Thailand  said that while continuing to consider both scenarios, his 
delegation was concerned about step (ix) in scenario  B: "The dedicated meeting would be concluded 
once…Members are satisfied with the outcome, in cluding any agreed changes". He understood that 
this was the condition for the conclusion of the verifi cation exercise.  In order to maintain the balance 
between scenario A and scenario B, this sentence should be moved to  step (vii) concerning bilateral 
and purilateral consultations.  Th e roadmap should allow for possibl e adjustments according to the 
progress of negotiations.    
20. The representative of New Zealand  stated that her delegation continued to see scenario B as 
the most appropriate option in the current contex t.  Since the process might require changes of 
substance, it needed to allow for time and adequa te space for this to happen including through having S/CSC/M/57 
Page 4  
 
  bilateral and plurilateral consultati ons, so that Members would have opportunities to be fully satisfied 
with the substance.  She also echoed the statement made by Australia regard ing the change of terms 
from "rollback" to "backtracking".   
21. The representative of Switzerland
 recognized that certain aspects of scenario B were helpful. 
Particularly, it allowed for more time for the verifi cation exercise.  In order to ensure the quality of 
the exercise, enough time was required.  Echoing the statement by Hong Kong, China, he stressed that 
any scenario would have a bearing on the need  for particular protocol language to address 
backtracking, as schedules might still contain back trackings after the verification exercise.   
22. The representative of Brazil  stated that his delegation still had some concerns about scenario 
B which might lead to another phase of negotiations.  His delegation did not think this was desirable.  
Verification should be a technical exercise as suggest ed in scenario A rather than something that 
would allow Members to engage into further negotia tions.  Referring to the Secretariat's introductory 
remarks, he understood that the verification exer cise in Agriculture and NAMA was of a different 
nature.  
23. The representative of the European Union  believed that the Committee had exhausted 
arguments concerning the roadmap for the verification exercise.  It was now the time, probably in the 
coming weeks, to reach a convergent view on this issu e.  Her delegation continued to support scenario 
B and shared the views expressed by Australia and New Zealand in this regard.  Bilateral and 
plurilateral consultations during th e verification exercise would be an important tool to solve most 
problems as indicated in the Secretariat's Note.  Her delegation would reflect further on the issue of protocol language as even a thorough verification exercise might not help identify all the 
backtrackings. 
24. The representative of Japan
 said that her delegation also preferred scenario B and wished to 
discuss protocol language which was im portant to avoid backtracking.  
25. The representative of India  said that after going through this revised version, his delegation 
felt that having verification before the formal conclusion of negotiation, i.e. scenario B was 
preferable. It would provide more space and flexibilit y for Members in terms of holding consultations 
and making agreed changes.  However, his dele gation's concerns about determining "levels of 
commitment" or "rollbacks" or "backtrackings" rema ined.  Would the assessme nt be based on a line-
by-line comparison or on an overall comparison?  If done on a line-by-line basis, how would one 
compare, for example, the removal of an ENT with the inscription of a numerical limitation? Avoiding a discussion on the issue of rollback or backtracking amounted to only postponing the 
problem to a later phase, when there might be no time to discuss it in detail.  On the issue of using the 
term "backtracking", he needed to consult his capita l on the implications.  He did not comprehend the 
enthusiasm shown by certain Members as the term "backtracking" was as vague as "rollback".  In 
view of the complexity and uncertainty involved in  defining rollback or backtracking, his delegation's 
preliminary approach would be to prefer a sect or/subsector overall comparison to a line-by-line 
comparison provided that the overall level of lib eralization under each sector/subsector was not 
reduced.  However, his delegation reserved the right to reflect furt her on the subject and revise its 
position.   
26. The representative of Turkey
 noted that in the Uruguay Round , verification had been carried 
out only to check technical accuracy of the schedules  as described in scenario A.  While aware of the 
advantages of scenario B, her delegation's main c oncern about this scenario was that verification 
might become a never ending exercise.  She also sh ared the concerns expressed by Brazil.  For the 
time being, her delegation remained in favour of scenario A.  S/CSC/M/57 
 Page 5 
 
 
  27. The representative of Cuba  indicated his delegation's preference for scenario B in which 
verification was carried out on a multilateral basis.  The exercise should not exceed six months and after its completion the new commitments would no longer be questioned to ensure the certainty of 
commitments.  Special and differential treatment sh ould be maintained for LDCs so that they could 
benefit from technical assistance to prepare their schedules. 
28. The representative of El Salvador,
 also speaking on behalf of Guatemala, noted that these 
delegations were reviewing the two scenarios and woul d come back with comments of a more specific 
nature.  Their main interest was to ensure le gal certainty of commitments.  She understood that 
Members could express their concerns on each other' s commitments during the verification exercise. 
The exercise should be practical, taking into account  the time lines for the conclusion of the Round as 
well as the processes in Agriculture and NAMA.  Sh e reiterated that there was no need to include 
particular language in the protocol. 
29. The representative of China  reiterated his delegation's preference for scenario B and its 
concerns about the need for particular protocol language to prevent backtracking.  Such language 
might open the door for future disputes.    
30. The representative of the United States  sought clarifications from the Secretariat on when the 
protocol would be drafted, before or after verifica tion.  A strong verification exercise would lessen the 
need for particular protocol language.  While his delegation leaned towards scenario B which meant a 
stronger verification exercise, it shared the view rais ed by Brazil to some extent concerning the need 
to avoid protracted negotiations in the verifica tion process.  He supported the idea of starting to 
examine entries in schedules during the market acces s negotiations so as to reduce the pressure on the 
verification process.   
31. The representative of the Republic of Korea  shared the concerns about scenario B raised by 
Brazil and Turkey and expressed his preference for scenario A.  However, his delegation remained open-minded.   
32. The representative of Pakistan
 indicated that his delegation preferred scenario B.  The time 
for the verification exercise would not be unlim ited because after the agreement on modalities and the 
scheduling exercise, there would be limited time fo r the conclusion of the Round.  Therefore, there 
was a need to have protocol language to cove r any insufficiencies, including time and capacity 
constraints.  While using the term "backtrack ing" to replace "rollback" might be positive, 
"backtracking" remained subjective.  This also  underscored the need for protocol language.   
33. The representative of Egypt  stated that her government had not decided yet between the two 
scenarios.  It was in favour of an efficient verifi cation process rather than resorting to complementary 
approaches such as protocol language.    
34. The representative of Canada  noted that some delegations had underscored the 
complementary need for protocol language in addition to a strong verification process.  Time 
constraints were mentioned as one of the reasons.  In addition, it was possible that Members could not 
resolve disagreement on backtracking during the ve rification process, though everybody agreed that 
backtracking should be avoided.  While his dele gation had a slight preference for scenario B, 
important questions remained, which went beyond either of the two scenarios. 
35. The representative of Switzerland  commented on whether backtracking should be determined 
at a specific or an overall level.  In the latter cont ext, the focus would be on establishing a balance of 
commitments in a sector or in the entire schedule, which would allow for the deterioration of certain 
specific commitments.  However, international oblig ations had to be respect ed under any conditions 
once undertaken.  The only way of derogating from an obl igation was to either abrogate or modify it.   S/CSC/M/57 
Page 6  
 
  36. The representative of Mexico
 said that her delegation continued to examine the two scenarios.  
On a preliminary basis, she was of the view that while scenario B could help Members avoid backtrackings, it might turn the verification exercise into negotiations.  Therefore, specific conditions 
were needed for the verification exercise.  She reit erated that precise protocol language was required 
to prevent backtracking, which would also help cl arify the focus of the verification exercise.   
37. The representative of Indonesia
 stated that his government was still examining the issue.  His 
delegation was concerned that scenario B might lead  to a prolonged negotiation or even renegotiation 
of what had been achieved so far.  Regarding step (vii) of scenario B, he asked what would happen if 
no compromise was reached during bilate ral and plurilateral consultations. 
38. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation had preference for scenario B.  
He noted that a similar verification exercise had been foreseen in Agriculture and NAMA. 
39. The representative of Tanzania  suggested that the roadmap contain language to provide LDCs 
with flexibility. 
40. In response to the point made by Tanzan ia, the representative of the Secretariat  referred to 
paragraph 6 of the Secretariat Note (JOB/SERV/ 21/Rev.2) which stated: "while LDCs are not 
required to submit offers according to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, the Secretariat stands 
ready to provide them assistance in the prepar ation of final schedules, whenever needed." 
41. Regarding the question on when the protocol would be adopted, the representative of the 
Secretariat explained that the protocol needed to be  ready when the results of  the negotiations were to 
be adopted, i.e. step (iii) in scenario A or step (x) in scenario B.  He noted some delegations had 
reiterated the need for particular  protocol language as they were concerned that the verification 
exercise would not provide the clarity or the guarantee expected.   
42. Concerning the link between the verification process in services and that in other areas, while 
recognizing their different nature, he stressed that  the current round was a single undertaking where 
links might be established across all areas, in particul ar at the final stage.  It would not be in any 
Member' interest to conclude the negotiations in one  area in isolation from others.  The conclusion of 
the negotiations should be at the same point in time across the board.  There were some subtle stages 
such as the conclusion of the bargaining process in the market access negotiations.  In Agriculture and 
NAMA, according to the Secretariat's Note of 200 7 (JOB(06)/99/Rev.1), after the modalities had been 
established, Members were to prepare draft schedul es in which the established modalities were to be 
reflected; those draft schedules would be subject to verification and be considered approved by 
consensus once there were no reservations pending on th em.   Such a process was equivalent to what 
had been described in step (ix) of scenario B wh ere the dedicated meeting would be concluded once 
all the draft schedules had been examined and all ou tstanding issues solved.  Verification was in fact 
the last phase of negotiations where Members would ensure that what they had agreed upon would be 
accurately reflected in the treaty copy.  As to th e question about how much time was needed for the 
verification exercise, he thought that Members w ould have enough time for the exercise between the 
submission of draft schedules and the adoption of th e final results in all areas, because most of the 
alleged cases of backtracking would have been solved  prior to the exercise.  Members might consider 
the possibility of preparing the protocol language in the light of how the verification process unfolded.   
43. The Chairperson  said that she would hold consultations  on how to proceed under this agenda 
item.  She also suggested that th e Committee take note of the statem ents made and revert to this 
agenda item at its next meeting.   
44. It was so agreed .  S/CSC/M/57 
 Page 7 
 
 
  C. SCHEDULING ISSUES  
45. The Chairperson  noted that there had been no discussion under this agenda item for some 
time. She continued to encourage delegations to ma ke contributions and sugg ested that the Committee 
revert to this item at the next meeting. 
46. It was so agreed . 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
47. The representative of Turkey  noted that the following statement by her delegation should 
have been included in the report of the Committee's last meeting: "classification was a dynamic issue and in parallel with technological developments, new service fields were born which made constant 
updates necessary in existing lists; it was therefore unfeasible to adopt a single source as universal; in 
addition, using a single list of definitions in fields  such as air and maritime transport would also be 
impossible for political reasons."   
E. 
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE  
48. The Chairperson  stated that, as this was the first me eting of the Committee for the year, an 
item on the "Appointment of Chairperson for the Committee" had been included in the agenda, 
according to the Rules of Procedures.  Given that the consultations on the slate of names for various 
bodies were still on-going, the formal election of the Committee's Chair for 2011 would take place at the beginning of the next meeting. 
 
__________