WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/IT/M/53 
12 September 2011 
 (11-4379) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 24 MAY 2011 
 
Chairman:  Mr Tomohiro Kaneko (Japan) 
 
 
Agenda of the Meeting          Page 
 
1.  Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Produc ts (G/IT/1/Rev.44) ................................................................... 2  
2.  EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Types of Conformity Assessment  Procedures for 
EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.6) ........................................................... 2  
3.  Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ........................................................................................................ ... 3 
4.  Divergences in Classifying Information T echnology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/33) .............................................................................................. 4  
5.  Proposal from the European Communities Con cerning the Review of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA) ....................................................................................................  7 
6.  New Participants .............................................................................................................. ......... 11 
7.  Other Business ................................................................................................................ .......... 11 
(i)  US statement on its Federal Register notice of 6 May 2011 ..................................................... 11  
(ii)  Celebration of the 15th anniversary of the ITA. ........................................................................ 11  
(iii) Review of product coverage .................................................................................................... .. 11 
8.  Date of the ne xt meeting ...................................................................................................... ..... 11 
9.  Election of Chairperson ....................................................................................................... ..... 11 
 
 
_______________ 
 G/IT/M/53 
Page 2 
 
 
  Introduction 
  The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for the meeting was circulated in WTO/AIR/3750 on 
13 May 2011.  An annotated agenda for the meeting w as also contained in JOB/IT/3 dated 17 May 2011.  
With reference to the agenda, the Chairman asked if any delegation wished to raise any matter under other 
business.  The representative of the United States stat ed that she wanted to briefly inform the Committee, 
under other business, on a recent federal registry notice issued in Washington re garding the ITA.  The 
Chairman stated on his part, that he wanted to propose an item regarding the celebration of the 15th 
anniversary of the ITA.  Additionally, the Chairman stat ed that he would also take up the "review of product 
coverage", and the "date of the next  meeting" under other business.    
  The agenda was adopted with these additions.  
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.44) 
1.1 The Chairman stated that an overview of implemen tation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products was contained in document G/IT/1/Rev .44.  This document updated the 
Participants on issues pertaining to the WTO procedur es for implementation.  He pointed out that as 
indicated in the document, the completion of domestic  legal procedural requirements for El Salvador was 
still pending.  Furthermore, contact with the delega tion of Morocco would be required to accelerate the 
process of submitting its formal documentation.   He would keep the Participants informed of any new 
developments in this regard.  He looked forward to  receiving Participants' updates or comments concerning 
these implementation matters.     
1.2 The representative of Panama stated that Panama  was fully aware of the positive contribution that 
the ITA had made to the world growth and economi c well-being as well as the well-being of Panama.  
Panama shared the objectives of pursuing the fullest fr eedom of world trade in IT products and it was his 
honour to confirm that as of 1 January 2012, the gover nment of Panama would eliminate all customs duties 
under the ITA alongside with its participation in the Agre ement.  He also informed  the Committee that over 
the coming days, Panama would be submitting a note to the WTO Secretariat for distribution to Members, 
including Panama's ITA schedule of commitments so that Panama could finally fulfil the procedures as 
required by the 1980 Decision for modification a nd rectification of schedules of concessions.  
 
1.3 The Chairman thanked the representative of Pa nama and urged those Participants that had not 
followed the procedures for the formal rectification and modification of their schedules, to complete them as 
soon as possible as required by Paragraph 2 of the Annex to the ITA.     
  1.4 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Typ es of Conformity Assessment  Procedures for 
EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.6) 
2.1 The Chairman recalled that at the end of 2000, the Committee approved a Work Programme on 
NTMs with the objective of identifying impediments to trade in ITA products.  One of the outcomes of that 
exercise was the completion of a pilot project which led to the adoption of the "Guidelines for 
Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagne tic Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment 
Procedures" on an ad referendum basis.  Upon adopti on of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat, based on the 
survey responses submitted by and notifications received from the Participants, prepared a note on the "Draft 
List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures fo r EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants" (G/IT/W/17).  
During the proceedings of the Committee, the Particip ants found the information contained therein very 
useful and wished to have it completed.  As agreed  at the previous Committee meeting, he had again on 17 
December 2010, written to those Partic ipants that had not submitted a survey response or a notification,  G/IT/M/53 
 Page 3 
 
 
  urging them once again to do so.  Since then, two more notifications had been received from Croatia and 
Peru.  In this regard, he took the opportunity to thank those two delegations for their co-operation and 
support to the Committee's work. Thus, among the 46 Participants, 26 of them had provided such 
information.  In his view, this had greatly increase d transparency on the types of conformity assessment 
procedures for EMC/EMI used by these ITA Participants which would, in turn, facilitate international trade 
in this important sector.  However, he noted that 20  Participants, including those that had recently joined, 
had neither submitted a survey response nor a notificati on regarding the type of assessment procedures used 
by their authorities for EMC/EMI.  He invited these delegations to update the in formation as contained in 
document G/IT/W/17/Rev.6.  
 
2.2 The representative of the European Union stated that his delegation had been traditionally supportive 
of this initiative.  In its view, the issue was very im portant for the ITA and as tariffs disappeared, what had 
become important to tackle, were these types of regul atory measures.  First of all, his delegation was 
encouraged that two more Participants had provided the information, but still 20 had yet to submit their 
information.  He urged those who had not done so to provide their information.  Secondly, what was more 
important was that the Committee needed to do someth ing with this information or the idea of having a 
Work Programme on NTMs should go beyond only providing information.  The Committee had to start thinking on how to move Participants from the more rest ricted left side of the page to the more open right 
side of the page and how the Committee was going to get there.  His delegation was going to come back 
more generally to the issue of NTMs in some of the following agenda items.    
2.3 The representative of Canada stated that his dele gation, just like the EU, was a long standing 
proponent of this exercise.  Canada still considered this project to be viable and wanted to encourage those 
participants who had not yet done so to provide th eir information on the EMC/EMI conformity assessment 
procedures. He stated that Canada could provide assistance to Participants whose responses were still 
outstanding. 
 
2.4 The Chairman stated that any delegation that had questions could contact the Secretariat for detailed 
information, clarification or assistance.  He enc ouraged the 20 delegations that had not yet provided 
information, to do so and requested the Secretaria t to contact those delegations to provide technical 
assistance as needed.   
2.5 It was so agreed. 
 
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the previous meetings of the Committee, several delegations 
emphasized the importance of the Committee's work on  NTBs in the ITA sector.  Developments in NAMA 
negotiations were reported, where tw o delegations had made their proposals on NTBs in the electronic sector 
concerning barriers such as:  non-recognition of interna tional standards; lack of transparency and openness 
in domestic standardization processes, and unnecess ary burdensome and duplicative conformity assessment 
procedures.  He invited those delegations to update the Committee on this matter.  
  
3.2 The representative of the European Union stated  that under the previous item, his delegation had 
already highlighted how important the work of the ITA was and had started discussions on conformity 
assessment.  He said that for those who actively fo llowed the discussions in the DDA on NTB negotiations 
were aware that the EU had made huge progress with regard to the typology and possible solutions that 
needed to be found in that particular area and that th e pilot project had been very useful in launching that 
work.  Thus, the EU, in a way, was of the opinion that perhaps it was time th at the ITA Committee should 
think about launching new areas and breaking new grounds that could be very important for trade in IT 
products.    G/IT/M/53 
Page 4 
 
 
  3.3 He said that in a sector  where  no tariffs and ju st NTBs, if one wanted to do something useful with 
regard to the functioning of the ITA, one should thi nk areas that could have  more in-depth discussion or 
better knowledge, on how that might work together with ot her areas.  In the opinion of the EU, probably, one 
needed to have a look into trade in goods in relation to  some of the services that were closely related to the 
delivery of products.  Especially, in the ITA context, services and goods were increasingly traded together or 
to create a relief, to be able to trade goods one  needed to have access to certain services.    
 
3.4 He further stated that a general first list of areas where the Committee might need to look into, for 
instance, firstly, could be manufacturing services; sec ondly, there were the business and proactivity software 
and licensing services; thirdly, the whole informati on technology consultancy a nd services; and fourthly, a 
very important part is the telecom services.  If the Co mmittee wanted to extend the work further, there were 
of course also the whole leasing and rental services, which were very important and related. These areas 
would be able to trade in IT products in a broader scale and for important contract. There might be other 
services being excluded from the list.  The list was just  to start a debate and the Committee would certainly 
be having the opportunity to furthe r develop these ideas.  Also, the EU, in  general, was of the opinion that 
the whole area of public procurement might be a subject  for further reflection.  However, the services area 
would probably be more important at this stage.  
 
3.5 The representative of the United States informed  the Committee that her delegation submitted a 
revised proposal on NAMA in September 2010 that built on the WTO TBT Agreement, work already done 
in the ITA Committee on "Draft Guidelines for EMC/EM I conformity assessment procedures", and in APEC 
on a work program with an end goal of relianc e on common standards and acceptance of suppliers 
declaration of conformity.  The proposal was desi gned as a framework to increase and facilitate trade 
through the prevention of unnecessary non-tariff barri ers to trade, so as to promote innovation and 
competition in the electronics sector, and to provide bene fits to consumers in the form of lower costs and 
greater choice of product.  She further said that th e EU had tabled a proposal that addressed many of the 
same elements as the US proposal, but used a different  approach.  Despite many efforts since 2008, the US 
and the EU had been unable to bridge the substantive ga ps on key issues such as:  international standards and 
conformity assessment procedures, though the US had made  considerable progress.  She further noted that at 
this stage in the Doha Round, negotiations on NTBs in NAMA were likely to continue throughout 2011 and 
her delegation looked forward to continuing its work with  the EU in that context.  In the view of the US, 
NAMA continued to be the most appropriate venue fo r these discussions.  Consequently, the US saw no 
need to duplicate the work in  that forum with similar work in the ITA Committee.   
 
3.6 The representative of Japan stated that on the NT M Work Programme, his delegation believed it had 
to take into account the state of the negotiations in NAMA for the time being, and felt Participants should be 
ready for resumption of the discussion on the NTM Wo rk Programme at the ITA Committee meeting.   
 
3.7 The Chairman thanked the three delegations for their updates and comments.  He felt it was 
important that Participants be provi ded with the information and opportunity to continue their discussion on 
NTBs.  He suggested the Committee revert to this issue at future meetings.  
 3.8 It was so agreed. 
 
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Te chnology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/33)  
4.1 The Chairman, first of all, recalled his de tailed report made at the Committee meeting of 11 
November 2010, which later on was issued as a JOB docum ent (JOB/IT/2 dated 1 December 2010).  In that 
report, he stated that he would, at an appropriate time, assess the situation and hold informal consultations 
with the Participants and propose a draft decision for th e endorsement of List I - A at this meeting of the 
Committee.  He then reported that si nce the last Committee meeting, he had held two informal meetings on 8 
April and 10 May 2011 and had also conducted consultations w ith certain delegations in between.  Based on  G/IT/M/53 
 Page 5 
 
 
  these informal meetings and consultations, he unders tood that Participants did not see any significant 
problem in endorsing List 1-A, despite few Participan ts asking for more time for internal consultations 
within their respective government and other Custom Uni on partners.  He further recalled that in his earlier 
report to the Committee, he had noted that many new Participants had joined th e ITA in recent years and 
some of them had encountered difficulties deriving from th e process of transposition. He also mentioned that 
at the informal meeting on 8 April, some Participan ts requested the Secretar iat to prepare a background 
document t explaining the origin of the HS96 codes contained in List I- A, as well as the transposition of 
such codes into HS2002 and HS2007.  In response to that request, he informed  the Committee that the 
Secretariat had diligently prepared a technical note "Classification Divergences: Transposition of Items in 
List I (A) into HS2002 and HS2007" circulated as G/IT /W/33 dated 16 May 2011, and invited the Secretariat 
to explain the note.   
4.2 The Secretariat briefly explained the note (G/IT/W/ 33).  The first part of the note outlined the basics 
of the history starting with the mandate in the Mi nisterial Declaration. Also, the document which 
Participants agreed on the implementation and then a brief summary of the discussions that took place by a 
group of  customs experts for the classification of th e 55 "Attachment B" products.  The second part of the 
note explained the methodology with which it had the A nnex.  It summarized on how the table was prepared.  
The Annex had the list of 18 Attachment B products whic h were in List I-A, that had been put forward for 
endorsement.  It had the ITA number which was something that was assigned a long time ago as a list of the 
numbers encoded in all the ITA items.  It also iden tified whether they were coming from Attachment A, 
Section 2 or from Attachment B itself in the ITA.  Th e Secretariat had also included the description of the 
products in the original HS code in HS 96 as included in the ITA, thus, column No 5.   
 4.3 The Secretariat further explained that column 6 basically listed the codes which were listed in 
List I - A and this was again the one that had been put forward for endorsement.  Then, looking into the 
transposition of these codes in column 6 into HS 20 02, one could see basically only two items changed, 
which was a very slight change.  At the moment, the biggest changes in respect of these codes were when 
they changed from HS 2002 to HS 2007 as highlighted in bold.  In fact, the different codes that had changed were mostly from HS 2002 to HS 2007.  The Secretariat clarified that they had a technical issue because the 
correlation tables were from the WCO.  There had been asterisks which were explicit in noting that there 
was no consensus in these correlations.  So basically, wh at the Secretariat had was just an extract of its 
previous work done in 2007, in JOB (07)/96 or the column of HS 2007.  The Secretariat indicated that it 
could only be taken as indicative because it was somethin g that had not been really  agreed upon or discussed 
by the Committee.  Finally, column 9 was simply an indication that compared columns 5 and 6, indicating 
whether there was a change in the code as it was contai ned in the ITA itself and the proposal that had been 
put forward for consideration by the Participants.   
  4.4 The Chairman thanked the Secretariat and stated th at the note prepared by the Secretariat was based 
on the information contained in JOB (07)/96 of 25 June  2007.  In his view, this would make it easier for 
Participants to understand the transposition of items in List I - A into HS2002 and HS2007.  
 
4.5  The Chairman presented the draft decision entitle d: "Decision for the Classification of Certain 
Attachment B Products" which was made available to th e delegations as a Room Document.  He stated that 
should Participants agree, this decision could be ad opted at the next Committee meeting which would take 
place during the second half of the year.  He believed that  Participants would have sufficient time to examine 
various aspects of the draft decision, and the new Ch airman would continue to hold consultations on this 
matter, as appropriate, with a view to adopting the D ecision at the next Committee meeting.  He said that 
once the Decision had been adopted, each Particip ant should reflect, as appropriate, the agreed 
classifications in its WTO schedule of concessions following the procedures set forth in the 1980 Decision 
on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25).  
Participants would therefore submit the relevant docume ntation in this connection with such modification by 
a specific date.    
 G/IT/M/53 
Page 6 
 
 
  4.6 The Chairman strongly hoped that together with the document prepared by the Secretariat regarding 
transposition, the draft decision would also allow those Participants who might have difficulties in endorsing 
List 1-A to identify the reasons for their difficulties,  and the Secretariat would provide technical assistance 
as needed.  He invited Participants for prelim inary reactions on the proposed draft decision.  
 
4.7 The representative of the Philippines informed th e Committee that she had instructions from her 
capital to approve the 18 items with a common classification and the formal notification would follow 
shortly.  She also thanked the Secretariat for the document prepared especially, the matrix on how the HS 
numbers had moved on from HS 96, HS2002 to HS2007.  She took note of what the Secretariat had said 
with respect to the possible transpos ition to HS2007 that some of the ite ms were not yet agreed upon in the 
WCO.  However, she was encouraged because this meant that somehow the Committee was moving on this 
matter after all these years and which was also highlight ed by the room document on a possible decision.  
She noted that the Philippines looked forward to wo rking on the draft decision with the hope that the 
Committee would adopt it at the next meeting through consultations by the new Chair. 
 
4.8 The representative of Canada thanked the Chairman for the draft decision and the Secretariat for the 
note.  He said that in 2002, Canada submitted some comments on List I-A, registering certain concerns. 
However, it was not clear within his delegation, whethe r they had officially come back on those comments; 
he wanted to clarify for the record that with a view  to endorsing the List, Canada no longer had reservations 
and was in a position to endorse the list if this had not been made clear in the p ast.  He stated that his 
delegation would take a look at the draft decision in light of that position and hoped to endorse the List at the 
next meeting.   
 4.9 The representative of Australia thanked the Chairman  for the draft decision and the Secretariat for 
the note (G/IT/W/33), and stated that the note had been u seful in regards to the analysis that his delegation 
had to do in respect of the transpos ition issue as well.  He advised that his capital was still in the process of 
consultation on the issue and was currently not in a position to endorse the List.  However, his delegation 
would take some time, before the next meeting, to look at the List and do some homework.  He hoped his 
delegation would be in a position to endorse the Li st at the next meeting of the Committee.    
 
4.10 The representative of the European Union thanke d the Chairman for the draft decision and the 
Secretariat for the note.  He stated that his delegati on had not yet digested the draft decision, but it was a 
useful initiative by the Chair in advancing this issue.   He said that his delegation would look at it in a 
positive light as this had already been agreed upon am ongst many Participants, including the EU, thus, did 
not expect any problem.  However, he said that wh ile the ITA had been so successful in abolishing the 
tariffs, it had been less successful in resolving classifi cation divergences.  He noted that the Committee was 
going to decide on agreeing on a number of classification divergences which had been there for 15 years and was a problematic situation.  He thanked the Chairman  for his courage to advance the Committee's work in 
this regard.  He suggested that the Committee think of othe r solutions in order to tackle the rest of the Lists.  
In his view, this was only the very beginning and wonder ed what would happen with regard to List V, which 
was the most difficult one.  He suggested two ideas, the fi rst was to give customs experts a much larger role, 
and to organize for them to meet either in Geneva  or in Brussels at the WCO and the second was for the 
Committee to take a more structural and long-term approach  toward the rest of the Lists in the context of the 
review of the ITA as proposed by his delegation.  In that proposal, his delegation proposed to look at less 
fine-tuning classification and go to br oader categories, for example, ideally , if one could ma nage to include 
everything at 4-digit level then there would of course be much less of this type of classification involved.  
However, he did not know if the Committee could end up there, but would certainly be something to reflect 
upon in the future.  His delegation supported the Secr etariat's approach and would look at it in a positive 
light for the next meeting. 
 
4.11 The representative of the United States thanke d the Chairman and the Secretariat for taking the 
initiative to help the Committee move forward on this i ssue.  The US would review the draft decision with 
great interest and in a positive light.  She also remind ed the Committee that, List I - A, included products  G/IT/M/53 
 Page 7 
 
 
  through which customs experts narrowed divergences to one classification option and as such the list really 
should be easy and straight forward for the Committee to  endorse.  She again stated that the List did not 
affect the scope of the obligation for those products.  
4.12 The representative of Malaysia informed the Pa rticipants that his government was studying the 
List I - A items and would refer to the Committee for endorsement.  On the draft decision, his delegation 
would study it and it seemed a very good proposal.  Hi s delegation looked forward to a positive outcome.   
 4.13 The representative of Japan appreciated and supporte d the Chair's initiative on this issue and would 
consult with his capital on the draft decision on List I - A products. He hoped to be ready to endorse it at the 
next meeting.  In addition, he thanked the Secretar iat for the note and hoped it would be of use to the 
Participants.  
 
4.14 The representative of New Zealand thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for their work.  She 
found the note by the Secretariat very useful as it highlighted the amount of work that had gone in this area 
for quite some time and in that light, she did note that  List I - A was agreed ad referendum back in 2004.  
However, like some other delegations, consultations were still on-going in her capital on List I-A. She hoped 
to be able to respond formally to the Committee very shortly on both the List itself and the draft decision 
which had just been received.    
 4.15 The representative of  El Salvador  joined others in thanking the Ch airman and the Secretariat for the 
draft decision and the note.  She stated that consulta tions were on-going in her capital on List I-A.  She also 
took due note that a decision would be taken at the ne xt meeting and would communicate the message to her 
capital.  
 
4.16 The representative of Korea also thanked the Chair for his draft decision and the Secretariat for the 
note.  He mentioned that he had already expressed his delegation's positive position on the List I-A and did 
not expect much difficulty in agreeing with the draft d ecision at the next meeting.  Furthermore, he wanted 
to echo the importance of the work to be continued on  the rest of the classifications issues.  He also 
appreciated EU's ideas about pursuing this work in a more efficient way, but wanted to reiterate the 
importance of the political world to resolve this is sue and suggested that the Committee think about the 
necessary tool and the political will for moving forw ard on this issue in a more effective manner.  
 
4.17   The Chairman thanked the delegations for their statements and as had been previously mentioned, 
the new Chair would conduct informal consultations with  a view to adopting this draft decision at the next 
Committee meeting which would take place in the second half  of 2011.  He also said that he had heard very 
useful suggestions from the EU.  He stated that in order to advance further the Committee's work on this 
issue, the new Chair would consider how to take this  into account in the informal consultations as well as 
move this issue forward at the next Committee meeting.    
 4.18 The Committee took note of the statements made.   
 
5. Proposal from the European Communities Co ncerning the Review of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA) 
5.1 The Chairman recalled that on 30 October 2008, the Committee discussed the proposal by the 
European Union (G/IT/W/28) concerning the review of th e ITA.  He also recalled that at that meeting, as 
well as the subsequent meetings, Pa rticipants had intense exchange of  views on the proposal and a number 
of queries were raised to the proponent seeking furthe r information and clarification, including from ASEAN 
ITA Participants as contained in JOB (08)/116.  He  encouraged the proponent to continue to engage 
bilaterally with those delegations with a view to  enabling the Committee to consider the initiation of 
informal consultations in this regard as soon as possible.   G/IT/M/53 
Page 8 
 
 
  5.2 The representative of the European  Union stated that his delegation felt strongly that the EU 
proposal not only was it still on the table, but would increase in importance and relevance for the Committee 
for two reasons.  Firstly, it was due to the state of  play of the NAMA negotiations in the Doha Round. 
Secondly, it was the dispute settlement procedures and implementation issues coming to an end.  In that 
situation, the EU proposal would become more interes ting to everyone and hoped that other Participants 
would be interested in engaging.  He stated that the EU proposal consisted of four elements and perhaps, the 
least controversial element was on the increase in membership. 
 5.3 Everyone could see the importance of the ITA sinc e its inception, its membership had doubled and 
there had been no reason for any Member to stay out.  ITA Participants already accounted for 97 per cent of 
the market share, representing an enormous boom for th e system.  It was without any doubt that this had 
been the most successful sector in the Organization, but there were still Members staying outside.  For some 
of them, domestically, it would not be easy to move towards the membership.  However, if more Members 
joined the ITA, more pressure would be generated on those Members to come on board.  He said that the 
Committee should encourage other Members to jo in the ITA and the commemoration of the 15
th anniversary 
of the ITA could be an opportune moment to extend the membership.   
 5.4 The second element was the increased product cove rage.  The EU proposed to review the product 
coverage as specified for in the ITA itself and was worki ng on a list of products to be put on the table which 
would constitute the EU's view on how the ITA covera ge could be expanded. Th e EU would of course 
stimulate everyone to come with their own ideas a nd then see how the Committee could make progress.   
 
5.5 The third element was already mentioned in two pr evious items relating to the NTBs.  This was the 
main missing element in the ITA which it was mandated for.  The Committee was s upposed to do this work 
but had not gotten that far.  The Committee had a very promising work program which mapped out the 
existing NTMs but had not done much.  The EU thought now would be the right time to do something about 
it.  In its view, one could not go without the othe r.  The tariff reduction an d expanded product coverage 
could not happen without increased attention to NTBs.    
5.6 He further stated that the forth element would be on the classification, or how to update the 
Agreement.  The Participants to the ITA could modern ize it by expanding the product coverage in such a 
way that classification problems did not occur anymore, for example, to be more broad, instead of X out of 
10 digit codes, going more to something that was predomin antly classified in 4 digits or 6 digits codes so as 
to avoid these types of problems.  He asked whether this was possible and whether one could find a more 
advanced way of updating it.  He emphasized that at least some sort of updating was necessary as the 
Committee had not actually done any updating that woul d, for example, include industry involvement.  
Those were the things that the EU wanted to look at.  The EU had proposed to put that on the table however, 
the Committee had not been able to work very much on the EU proposal because of the situation in the 
dispute settlement panel that had delayed the work.   
 5.7 The EU, however, was willing to look at how the Committee could advance all these elements 
together in a review of the ITA which was highly ove rdue.  Once the implementation of the WTO panel was 
completed, the EU would put forward its product list on the table and then discuss it with all Participants.  
The EU also wanted to go into detail on some of the other items in the proposal that was mentioned earlier 
so that the Committee could have a more active review on what had been done so fa r.  He stated that his 
delegation was actively looking for reactions and poi nts of view from others.  His delegation would 
appreciate it very much if others were to share with them, their views on this issue.   
 5.8 Another representative of the European Union was then invited by his colleague to speak more on 
NTBs.  He stated that the ITA was driven by industr y to come into force because it was a first real global 
industry that had been seen very successful at that time.   At that time the ITA was only able to address part 
of the market access difficulties and tariffs were able to  go to zero for ITA products.  However, NTBs were 
not addressed then and had probably increased over time and its importance.  At the same time, there had  G/IT/M/53 
 Page 9 
 
 
  been another development, as mentioned by both the US delegation and his dele gation of what had been 
proposed for the review in the context of the NAMA NTB discussions in the Doha Round.  Some ground 
work had been done there and his delegation felt th at the ITA Committee should be taking care of the 
progress made in that context as a starting base for looki ng deeper into the issue.   The ITA Committee was a 
particular club of those who thought that zero was the right tariff for ITA products and global open trade was 
very important.  Thus, even with regard to NTBs, th e Committee should be much more ambitious than what 
was currently being proposed in the context of th e normal NTB discussion in NAMA.  He thought that it 
would be an evolution of that kind of discussion in the ITA Committee.     
5. 9  He further outlined some of the id eas that the EU wanted to carry out on NTBs and make sure that 
the Committee would finally fulfil the wish of the indus try to act as a global industry.  First, the Committee 
would end up with smaller product coverage than in the broader NAMA, NTB context.  That would 
probably be less ambitious here on the product side but  on the other side as the Participants knew, the 
Committee was only discussing the EMC and el ectrical safety.  He stated that  with regard to the Committee's 
work on NTBs and the ITA framework, the risk relating to  radio emissions needed to be included.  The EU 
wanted to have a substantial widening of the area that it wanted to address.  Secondly, he stated that there 
was a big chunk of public purchases going on in the ITA ar ea.  Probably in the EU, it was around 20 per cent 
of GDP and for each country, though it differed in size,  was not negligible. In his view, for instance, the 
TBT Agreement did not apply to all of those and he thoug ht that this was a real short coming and needed to 
have a look into whether this was actually still reflecti ng current development of the industry.  He noted that 
the US had highlighted the important need for internati onal standardization with regard to the risk that the 
EU was proposing.  The EU would seek to highlight the standards being developed by the three main 
standard setting bodies (ISO, IEC and ITU).  However, since there was radio emission, the EU wanted to 
know whether the list would need to be expanded.   
 
5.10 With regard to conformity assessment, it was know n to all that the real trade facilitation was the 
supplier's declaration of conformity (SDoC).  He ag ain noted that it was widely understood that the EMC 
pilot project had brought some clarification.  He thought  that the Participants would have to find a way to 
define that the end point of all their regulatory develo pment would be that the Par ticipants all applied SDoC.  
At the moment, the Participants had defined the modaliti es to get there and they could not forget addressing 
the most important barrier that they were facing in the area.  One should not forget about registration and since the Participants were all probably going to SD oC overtime, why not start establishing a working party 
which could start developing a global market to show th e conformity with regard to EMC, electrical safety 
and radio emission.  It would be a working party for those Participants who thought about the future.    
 
5.11 He referred to transparency and said that some of the ideas current ly being discussed in the context 
of NAMA could certainly be applicable and useful in  the ITA.  Regarding the other elements mentioned 
before, he noted that something should be done on tran sparency for the public tender area.  The EU was not 
going to seek any change on the rules of the tenderi ng processes but wanted to increase the transparency and 
knowledge about what was happening in the public purch asing area.  He therefore suggested linking the ITA 
website to the actual notion of tendering systems in so me form and that would already increase the access to 
information and the importance of transparency.  
 
5.12 Another important area for the global IT industry would be the increasingly important discussion on 
rules of origin.  Since many ITA Part icipants were engaged in the bilate ral FTAs they were ending up with 
preferential rules of origin which actually were not ha rmonized.  However, if the IT industry was really a 
global industry, then the Committee needed to discuss the harmonized rules of origin.  It was therefore 
important for the Committee to have a very close look and think about the process that would allow all these 
agreements to move into non-preferential rules of origin  as these were the ones that the Participants shared in 
common.  He thought that it was very important to d ecrease the bureaucracy that w as put on the shoulders of 
these companies that were trading and manufacturing in the global IT industry.  He said that that was just an 
outline of some preliminary ideas his delegation had and some Participants would find them challenging - 
the Committee needed to think about what it was there for.  In his view, the Committee was about increasing G/IT/M/53 
Page 10 
 
 
  market access and making sure that one could trad e the ITA products, and trading around with just little 
tariffs here and there.  However, it was not enough in fixing the problem for the IT industry.  The 
Participants therefore needed to go a bit deeper.  Lu ckily, they had done some ground work in bringing the 
tariffs down to start from.   
 
5.13 The Chairman thanked the representatives of the EU for their comprehensive explanation and 
invited other delegations to share their views.  
 5.14 The representative of the Philippines, on behalf of the ASEAN, thanked the EU for reminding them 
of the main elements of its proposal.  She stated that as everyone was aware, the ASEAN had sent some 
written questions on the EU proposal and wanted to be  engaged in the proposal.  She indicated that the 
ASEAN was looking forward to receiving, in writing, the responses verbally prov ided by the EU at the 
previous meetings of the Committee so that the ASEAN could continue to be engaged.  She said that the 
Committee's future work on NTBs was correct, challenging and ambitious.  For the Philippines, at least, it 
was very important and her delegation would be watc hing closely what possible NTBs could be addressed 
for the global IT industry.  Her delegation looked fo rward to some ideas on how the Participants could 
concretise the current proposal by the EU and those by ot hers in the future.  Her delegation would look at all 
these angles and see what could be done.  It c ould be a busy year for the ITA Committee. 
 
5.15 The representative of the United States thanked the EU for its explanation of the proposal.  She 
stated that her delegation was positively exploring th e possibility of expanding the existing ITA product 
scope, which could go a long way in expanding trade in  IT products, especially as many new products had 
come into that market over the past 15 years.  Sh e noted that in response to the EU's 2008 ITA review 
proposal, a number of countries – including the United States (verbally) and ASEAN countries (in writing), 
had raised detailed questions on the proposal.  She hope d that the EU had taken these questions into account 
as it considered promoting its proposal, and would be in  a position to provide answers to those questions.  In 
her delegation's view, it was awkward to discuss this prop osal, given that its premise – i.e. that the ITA does 
not entail automatic product covera ge extension due to technological advances – was rejected by the recent 
WTO panel decision and also, given that it was still not clear what measures the EU would implement to 
bring its regime into compliance for the three products that were reviewed in th e case.  With respect to 
NTBs, there had already been extensive negotiations  in the NAMA negotiating group for addressing NTBs 
on electronic products.  She stated that as her delegati on had learned in NAMA, international standards were 
an enormously complex, systemic issue that cut across sectors, the US position and the position of US 
industry on why designation of specific standards developm ent organizations in a TBT-related context in the 
WTO was a bad idea and bad policy were well known, thus , no need to duplicate that debate in the ITA 
Committee.  She further stated that as her delegation ha d learned in NAMA, a one-size fits all approach was 
not appropriate and would not facilitate trade wh ile supporting Members' regulatory interests.   
 
5.16 The representative of the European Union  thanked those delegations for their interest and 
constructive attitude.  He apologized  to the ASEAN countries for not ha ving provided written answers to 
their questions.  Though his delegation had tried to give  some indications on their answers orally, at the 
previous meetings of the Committee, for some the ques tions could only be appropriately answered now, such 
as the question on how the EU intended to pursue the proposal in both NAMA and the ITA Committee.  He 
stated that they seemed to have more  clarity on that and a little bit more could be said about the inclusion of 
products that were identified and considered in the di spute proceedings.  He stated that his delegation was 
working on its earlier proposal with more clarification and would provide the ASEAN with answers to their 
questions in writing.  In response to the US remarks th at the EU had not finalized the implementation of the 
panel ruling, he indicated that it was true and norma l as it was not yet at the end of the implementation 
period.  The end of the implementation period, as agreed by both sides, was the end of June 2011.  Thus, he 
did not take this as a criticism nor think as somewhat awkward.  On NTBs, he stated that the Committee 
should discuss the exact coverage and content of wh at it would be doing on NTBs.  He thought that 
everybody should agree that NTBs were in the ITA and the ITA was always meant to do something on the 
NTBs.  At the moment, the discussion here was what  exactly the Committee was going to do on NTBs.    G/IT/M/53 
 Page 11 
 
 
   
5.17  The Chairman suggested the Committee take note of all the statements made and agreed that the 
Chairman hold further consultations. 
 
5.18 The Committee also agreed to revert to this issue at its next meeting.   
 
6. New Participants  
6.1 The Chairman noted that there had been no new request. 
 
7. Other Business 
(i) US statement on its Federal Register notice of 6 May 2011 
7.1 The representative of the United States thanked th e Chair for the opportunity to brief the Committee 
on a recent Federal Register notice.  She stated that following the favourable WTO panel decision last fall, 
the US IT industry had signaled their interest in exploring ways to build on the success of the ITA, 
specifically through expanding the product scope for dut y-free treatment.  She noted that there was also 
substantial interest among global industry for a tariff in itiative on ITA.  In response to that interest, the 
USTR published a Federal Register not ice earlier in May 2011, inviting p ublic comments on the desirability 
of such initiative.  The deadline for comments was 13 June 2011.  She hoped to be able to brief the 
Committee again later on the result of that Federal Register notice.  
 7.2 The Chairman suggested the committee take note of the statement made.   
 
(ii) Celebration of the 15th anniversary of the ITA.  
7.3 The Chairman stated that at the informal meeting of 10 May 2011, one delegation brought to his 
attention that next year marked the 15th anniversary of the ITA and suggested that it would be politically 
important for the Committee to commit to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the ITA.  In response, he 
suggested that the Committee add an item - the celebration of the 15th anniversary of the ITA in the agenda 
for the next meeting of the Committee and that the Chai r hold consultations prior to the next meeting of the 
Committee.  
 7.4 It was so agreed.    
 
(iii) Review of product coverage 
7.5 The Chairman stated that the issue of the revi ew of "product coverage" c ontinued to be a matter 
under consultation and encouraged delega tions to continue their efforts.  
 8. Date of the next meeting 
8.1 The Chairman proposed that the Committee hold its  next meeting in the second half of 2011 with the 
exact date to be agreed in c onsultation with delegations.   
 
8.2 It was so agreed.   
 9. Election of Chairperson 
9.1 The Chairman stated that the Committee normally  elected a new chairperson on an annual basis. 
Pursuant to the consultations by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, a consensus had been G/IT/M/53 
Page 12 
 
 
  informally reached on the election of Mr Syed Mo hd Faizal bin Mohd Dardin (Malaysia) as the new 
Chairperson of this Committee for 2011.  The Chairm an proposed the election of Mr Mohd Dardin.  
 9.2 The Committee elected Mr  Mohd Dardin as the new Chairman of the Committee of Participants on 
the Expansion of Trade in Informati on Technology Products by acclamation. 
 
9.3 Mr Mohd Dardin assumed his role  as Chairman of the Committee. 
 9.4 The outgoing Chairman, Mr Kaneko expressed his th anks to the delegations and the Secretariat for 
their support and co-operation accorded to him and hoped that they would do same to the new Chairman.    
 9.5 The incoming Chairman , Mr Dardin expressed his appreciation to the outgoing Chairman,  Mr 
Tomohiro Kaneko for chairing the Committee in the past year, and thanked the delegations for their support 
on his election as Chair of the Committee for the coming year.  He looked forward to working with all the 
delegations and the Secretariat in order to  advance the work of the Committee.   
 
9.6 The meeting was adjourned.  
 
__________