RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/S/M/20 
9 June 2006 
 
 (06-2806) 
Council for Trade in Services 
Special Session  
 
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 MAY 2006 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 
1. The Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services held a formal meeting on 24 May 
2006, chaired by Ambassador François Roux of Belg ium.  The agenda for the meeting was contained 
in document WTO/AIR/2819. 
2. The representative of Japan  stated that his delegation would make a statement under Other 
Business.  
3. The Chair  suggested that the Council adopt the age nda with the addition of the point just 
raised.  
4. It was so agreed . 
A. R EVIEW OF PROGRESS , INCLUDING PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE GUIDELINES FOR 
NEGOTIATIONS  
B. ORGANIZATION OF FUTURE WORK  
5. The Chair  noted that over the past few days, many Members had been engaged in a second 
round of plurilateral and bilateral request-offer negotiations, organized on a sectoral and modal basis.  
These negotiations had been conducted in accordance  with Annex C of the Hong Kong Declaration, 
which also reaffirmed that the Council needed to review progress in  the negotiations and monitor the 
implementation of the objectives, approaches a nd timelines set out therein. His preliminary 
assessment of this round of plur ilateral request-offer negotiations w as that the very positive spirit 
present in the first round had continued to prevail.  Although not all of the plurilateral groups needed 
to meet this time, those that had met continued to work hard in clarifying positions of participating 
Members with respect to the generally high level of ambition expressed in the collective requests.  The plurilateral negotiations continued therefore to contribute to the exchange of information among 
Members, and would thus facilitate the submission of  revised offers by Members by the 31 July date 
mandated by ministers. With respect to the organi zation of future work, he noted that Members had 
previously agreed to set aside the period from 19 - 30 June for a cluster of services meetings.  The 
question arose as to how best to organize time within  this period.  One way to proceed, as used in the 
past, would be to devote the first week to meetings  of the subsidiary bodies and the regular session of 
the Council.   It was possible that not all bodies would need to meet then, or would not need the full 
time usually allotted to them for meetings.  The second week would be used for a continuation of 
request-offer meetings (in bilateral or plurilateral form, to the extent that there was demand), with 
twin "bookend" meetings of the Special Session sche duled to begin and end the week. Suggesting that 
                                                     
 
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. TN/S/M/20 
Page 2  
 
  other ways of organizing time could also be envi saged, he invited Members having taken part in these 
plurilateral negotiations to share with others their views on how th e process was unfolding within the 
plurilateral groups as well as on the organization of future work, especially with respect to the 
organization of the June cluster of meetings. 
6. The representative of Canada
 noted that, although Members might have, for the time being, 
exhausted their capacity for productive market access talks, absent some spark from the agriculture 
and NAMA negotiations, the negotiating time of this cl uster had been well spent. The meetings during 
the past eight days had provided a useful bridge between the last cluster, which had seen services 
demandeurs define the collective level of amb ition associated with these negotiations, and the 
scheduled June meetings.  A number of plurilate ral meetings had taken place, among which Canada 
was the convenor of two: financial services and arch itectural, engineering and integrated engineering 
services.  In both groups co-sponsors had answered questions previously raised, in particular around 
the issues of Modes 1 and 2 and regulatory protectio n of consumers and liability.  Informal, factual 
reports would be circulated to participants.  Be yond plurilateral meetings, Canada had held a number 
of bilateral meetings.  The agenda for many of  these discussions had extended beyond market access, 
which included two important multilateral project s with which Canada was engaged: domestic 
regulation and the implementation of  the LDC Modalities.  The platform of the plurilateral meetings 
and the presence of capital-based negotiators from a number of countries had allowed for productive 
work. 
7. What this week had revealed was that serv ices negotiators and services negotiations found it 
impossible to avoid the "elephant in the room",  which was the lack of progress in other key 
negotiating areas, agriculture and NAMA.  Some Members had stressed that now was the time for 
clear signals on what was possible with respect to market access in services.  Others had made it clear 
that their ability to make services commitments did not necessarily depend on development within individual services sectors, or within the services negotiations themselves.  It depended on progress 
outside of the services negotiations.  For the time being, services was not the problem child of these 
negotiations.  In the face of no agreement on modalities in agriculture and NAMA at Hong Kong, it 
was not always clear what Members could do on services.  However, reflecting on the ensemble of what had been done since Hong Kong,  Members had delivered a program of work that through the first five months of this year had left the negotia tions reasonably well situated.  Ambitions had largely 
been defined by demandeurs and ha d been understood by recipients.  Plurilateral discussions revealed 
that most of the technical and scheduling issues were  largely falling away in the face of explanations 
and clarifications by demandeurs.  Bilaterally, Me mbers had begun to be extremely precise about the 
key expectations in each market.  What was now  missing was political will to reflect services 
ambition in offers.  Assuming that Members could get the elephant out of the room at the end of July, 
meaning that political ambition was defined in agriculture and NAMA, work would turn to 
maximizing services ambition.  That would no doubt  be a highly charged process.  But there was 
every reason to believe that, due to the backgroun d work accomplished in the past months, services 
(often seen as a potentially complicating factor in th e end game of the round) would be ready to move 
when others were. 
8. With regard to the June cluster, the representa tive of Canada stated that Members needed to 
recognize in their planning the political reality of the situation they found themselves in. Based on the 
experiences in this cluster, his delegation did not see much reason to resume expert-based market 
access discussions under the current conditions.  His delegation also did not want request-offer 
meetings during the week of 26 June to overlap with other potential Geneva events.  It would 
probably be better to hold off until there was a new political spark.  This was not to say that the 
services negotiations would be put in the freezer.  The meetings scheduled for the week of 19 June 
were to proceed more or less as planned, with th e subsidiary body meetings taking place, some of 
them being compressed towards the first half of the week.  Some flexible time needed to be provided 
for consultations and bilateral a nd small group meetings as well.  A major priority for this week  TN/S/M/20 
 Page 3 
 
 
  would be domestic regulation.  A nother important element in the fi rst week would be to have the 
CTSS Chair report on his informal work with delega tions on the LDC Modalities, and to continue the 
discussion on this issue.  While capital based negotiators might want to be engaging on these important multilateral negotiations, large numbers of sectoral experts might not be necessary for this 
week. He suggested that the Chair of the CTSS cons ult Members as to when it might be productive to 
schedule request-offer negotiations.  During the second week, flexible space would still be needed for 
plurilateral and bilateral discussions.  While it was doubtful that all plurilateral groups would want or 
need to meet before the deadline of 31 July, there might well be some that did (those that had not met 
this time, or those that still ha d substance to exchange).  Also, Members would undoubtedly want to 
continue to meet bilaterally to explore market access and other issues.  It would be productive to 
return to the plurilateral format after the tabling of  offers.  Finally, he suggested that the CTSS still 
need to meet to take stock and ensure transp arency during the second week of the cluster.   
9. The representative of Zambia
 on behalf of the LDC Group thanked Members for their 
continued support and positive engagement on issues c oncerning LDCs.  He noted that since the last 
meeting of the Special Session, several Member s had made comments on the LDC Group's proposal 
for the implementation of the LDC Modalities and had provided useful insight.  A number of 
Members had indicated that the implementation of  the LDC Modalities could be achieved through an 
integrated approach of increased ma rket access in sectors of export inte rest in the MTS, trade related 
assistance in improving the LDCs' supply capacity in services sectors, and through current north-south 
bilateral trade negotiations.  He stated that for th e LDC Group, the current priority lay in the first 
approach.  The Group wished to see binding obligations that reflected its special priorities in so far as 
market access was implemented and would contin ue to be implemented through increased and 
improved commitments in Mode 4, in particular, in sectors of export interest to LDCs.  The Group 
had taken comments formally and informally r eceived positively and had r esponded by rationalizing 
and clearly identifying the sectors of export interest to LDCs under Mode 4. 
10. The Group thus presented to its developed and developing country trading partners in the 
multilateral trading system its collective request in  Mode 4.  The request took into consideration 
commonly agreed categories of services suppliers  based on the W/120 classification list and the 
common approaches and proposals contained in TN/S/W/14, Job (03)/195, TN/S/W/32 and TN/S/W/31.  The Group requested commitments in four categories: independent professionals, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, a nd others. In making this request, the Group noted 
that the current initial and revised offers remained unbalanced and con tinued to a large extent to link 
the provision of services to commercial presence in host countries and to corporate entities in source 
countries.  Many offers still focused on categories of natural persons principally as intra-corporate 
transferees or independent professionals with high  minimum qualifications.  In many cases there were 
very few instances where lower skilled, less qualified and individual service providers were de-linked 
from juridical persons.  In almost all cases no account had been taken of the capability of persons to 
provide services based on their competence and de monstrated experience.  All these issues were 
essential for Mode 4 offers to have commercial valu e to LDCs and make them real partners and 
increase their participation in global services trade.  In addition, the Group believed that making such 
offers was a means for Members to implement their obligations under Article IV and as set out in the 
LDC Modalities.  The Group hoped that Members would respond positively to this request.  By doing 
so, Members would continue to promote the inter est of all participants in the negotiations on a 
mutually advantageous basis.  This would secure  an overall balance of rights and obligations, as 
called for by the Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services.  Finally, he 
stated that the Group remained constructively engaged and welcomed further questions or 
clarifications preferably in writing so as to facilita te structured and focused discussion.  He hoped that 
the content of the request would help Members bett er understand the sectors of interest to LDCs and 
constructively engage their domestic constituencies.   TN/S/M/20 
Page 4  
 
  11. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that during the last ten days his 
delegation had participated in fift een plurilateral meetings and had coordinated three of them, which 
were on distribution services, environmental ser vices and energy services.  These meetings had 
allowed for the second time discussions on the coll ective requests submitted in accordance with the 
Hong Kong Declaration.  Co-sponsors had provided a dditional information that had further clarified 
the content of the requests.  Recipients had fully grasped the nature, specificities and flexibilities of 
the commitments requested from them.  The explanat ory phase had been completed, at least at this 
stage of negotiations.  During the last ten days, his delegation had also held intensive bilateral 
meetings in order to follow up in more detail and in a more intimate setting to the plurilateral sessions.  
The essential objective of these mark et access activities was to get indications on and envisage the 
content of the upcoming revised offers.  He admitte d that unfortunately, the record in this respect 
proved to be poor and that Members were not in a serious negotiating mood.  There were only very 
few indications on possible improvements that might be reflected in revised offers.  Such situation at 
the late stage of negotiations with a deadline for revised offers only two months away was worrying 
and needed to be urgently changed. 
12. Urging trading partners to intensify their effo rts to submit substantial offers in July, his 
delegation had provided them with clear and focused indications of its expect ations in this regard. 
Only substantial offers could lead to serious departure from the unsatisfactory situation.  His 
delegation had consistently informed the membersh ip that it needed amb ition within the services 
negotiations and balance across the board in order to  be able to sell the results of the DDA to the 
stakeholders.  Elements related to balance and ambition needed to be addressed at the ministerial level 
in the stock-taking type of exercise at the most appropriately early occasion.  By no means should the 
upcoming ministerial discussion be limited to agriculture and NAMA. 
13. With respect to the next services cluster, and noting no need for further full scheduled 
plurilateral meetings, he suggested that the week of 19 June be devoted to the meetings of the 
subsidiary bodies, the regular and special se ssions of the Council, with emphasis on domestic 
regulation and the LDC Modalities, mobilizing Geneva-b ased delegates.  As to the second week of the 
cluster normally devoted to the market access negotia tions, he suggested that Members reflect on the 
best timing, taking into account possible developm ent in other areas of negotiations, so as to 
maximize the beneficial impact on the preparation of revised offers.  Therefore, the second week of 
the cluster could be postponed, but not later than th e second half of July.  He further suggested that 
the Chair of the Special Session hold consultations on the exact timing. 
14. Noting that his delegation was engaging in cons ultations for the preparation of its revised 
offer, he stressed that the current commitments of his delegation were the deepest and the most 
extensive of the entire membership and that hi s delegation had tabled substantial improvements 
representing the indication of its commitment to the process.  His delegation would maintain this commitment as it submitted its second revised offer.  In preparing its revised offer, his delegation 
carefully took into consideration different coll ective requests, notably those modal requests co-
sponsored by several developing country Members.   He called for equivalent moves by trading 
partners.  Noting that his delegations had also held informal talks on domestic regulation and the 
implementation of the LDC Modalities during the last ten days, he reiterated that his delegation was 
fully committed to contributing to finding appropria te and satisfactory solutions in this regard.   
15. The representative of Brazil
 noted that the plurilateral approach to the market access 
negotiations in services, as authorized by the H ong Kong Ministerial Declaration, had begun to be 
implemented during the March-April cluster and that  his delegation had joined in the unanimously 
positive evaluation of that exercise.  Essentially this evaluation had stemmed from the fact that 
plurilateral meetings had allowed for a positive e ngagement from all quarters.  Requesting Members 
had coordinated among themselves and had presented co llective requests, a step which had facilitated 
internal consultations in requested Members.  De legations had included a wi de range of technical  TN/S/M/20 
 Page 5 
 
 
  expertise, which had favoured dialogue towards clarification of technical doubts regarding the 
requests.  All Members – both requesting and requ ested – had benefited from these exchanges.  
Requested Members had been forthcoming in iden tifying those elements of the requests that had 
already been met, those that were red lines, as we ll as those that were still under active consideration. 
16. He, however, noted that this positive firs t experience of plurilateral meetings had 
unfortunately led to some exaggerated expectati ons.  Some believed that Members had embarked on 
sectoral negotiations and could easily progress towards "topping off" individual offers so that all Members would have roughly equivalent commit ments in each sector.  Some believed that all 
Members would be able to bring the same depth of technical expertise to all plurilateral meetings, as 
if continued technical dialogue were sufficient to replace the tough political decisions that would 
underpin progress in negotiations.  Some believed that Members could carry on in a "business-as-
usual" approach as if the events in other areas of the Doha Round would not have impact on the 
services negotiations.  Recalling that last April hi s delegation had cautioned the Council over these 
risks, he stated that the plurilateral meetings of the past seven days had not achieved the same degree 
of engagement as in the first round.  He noted th at there had been limite d scope in the technical 
discussions, which would lead Members to believe that technical clarification of the requests was 
essentially concluded.  Members had been hesitant to  give further precision as to the possibilities of 
improving offers, a fact that did not indicate lack of possibilities or political will, but which clearly indicated that the services negotiations would only progress if there were breakthroughs in other negotiating areas.  Not wishing to be misconstrued as disheartened with the state of play in the negotiations, he reiterated that hi s delegation continued not to subscribe to the smokescreen that had 
been blown around to the effect that services were in  some way holding back the DDA.  He stated that 
the services negotiations were firmly on track with co ncrete offers on the table.  What Members were 
to decide on was how best to use ti me in order to ensure that they would be ready to move forward in 
parallel with long delayed progress in other areas. 
17. Members needed particularly to consider how to better organize the June cluster.  Timing 
needed to be flexible so that Members could take advantage of progress in other negotiating areas.  In 
this context, his delegation would be ready to cont emplate any shift in the June cluster some time 
forward into July.  The format also needed to be flexible to allow fo r the subsidiary body meetings, in 
particular the meeting on domestic regulation, and for additional plur ilateral and bilateral meetings.  
While taking note of the suggestions made in this  regard, he stressed that experts from his capital 
wished to be able to participate in the nego tiations on domestic regula tion. His delegation was 
prepared to entrust the Chair with the res ponsibility of calibrating the meeting schedule in 
consultation with Members.  He, however, appealed  to the requesting Members in the plurilateral 
groups to demonstrate a degree of pragmatism by refraining from convening those groups unless there 
was a clear perception of significant value-added.  Reiterating that the plurilateral process was a voluntary one, he thought that it would be useful  if requesting Members consulted with requested 
Members when convening any further plurilaterals.  On domestic regulation, he stated that his 
delegation was satisfied that the negotiations, on  which progress was fundamental to allow for 
meaningful progress in the market access negotiations , had shifted into higher gear.  He thanked the 
Chair of the WPDR for his dedication.  Members needed to shift up one further gear and start negotiating on a consolidated text as soon as possibl e if they were to meet the Hong Kong mandate.  
He therefore urged Members who intended to submit  additional proposals to do so sooner rather than 
later.  
18. The representative of Benin
 said that his delegation supported the statement made Zambia on 
behalf of the LDC Group regarding the collective request  on Mode 4.  He stated that the movement of 
natural persons was very important for LDCs with  a view to market access in professional and 
commercial services.  He urged Members to consid er the LDCs' request which reflected the GATS 
provisions and the LDC Modalities.   TN/S/M/20 
Page 6  
 
  19. The representative of Cuba
 reiterated the importance her dele gation attached to assessment of 
trade in services.  Hoping to see this item on the agenda  of the future meetings of the Special Session, 
she stated that it was important to have a successf ul result in this round.  Her delegation was waiting 
for consultations by the Chair of the Special Session.   
20. The representative of the United States  stated that her delegation had participated in all the 
plurilateral meetings convened for the second round .  While sharing the sentiment articulated 
regarding the atmosphere in the second round of plur ilaterals, she pointed out that her delegation had 
made a lot of effort in these me etings and had been responsive to questions and comments made in the 
previous plurilaterals.  While some meetings might  not have required the full time allotted to them, 
the opportunity to exchange further views and clarif ications was very useful.  While in some cases 
experts were not able to attend, delegati ons could still gain further information. 
21. Her delegation had coordinate d the plurilateral meeting on postal and courier services 
including express delivery and had provided a summary for those not participating in the meeting.  All 
the recipients to the collective request had been represented at the meeting, and co-sponsors had 
provided additional clarifications based on questions raised during the previous plurilateral meeting.  
In particular, the collective request recognized the need for some Members to ensure the supply of 
universal services and that Members might need to  include the maintenance of monopolies in their 
schedules.  Recognizing that the level and coverage  of commitments varied across the Members, the 
request anticipated stronger co mmitments for activiti es carried out under competitive conditions, 
especially for private courier and express deliver y services.  At the meeting, co-sponsors had 
proposed that Members make clear commitments in postal and courier services in accordance with the 
request and their particular regimes.  She not ed that where Members had already scheduled 
commitments in courier and express delivery services, they did not make commitments or did not intend to schedule commitments in postal services.   Co-sponsors suggested that Members consider 
scheduling additional commitments which would make it clear that private suppliers of postal services 
would have treatment no less favourable than the trea tment accorded to the Po st when the Post was 
engaging in the activities in the competitive areas.  Her delegation wished to see further commitments 
in Members' schedules in this sector. 
22. In this round of meetings, her delegation ha d also held bilateral negotiations on market 
access, domestic regulation and the LDC Modalities.  Regarding the organization of future work, her 
delegation agreed that the schedule for the week of  19 June was to be maintained, particularly to 
ensure two full days for the negotiations on domestic regulation, and that the week was to be closed 
with the Special Session discussing the LDC Modalities and S&D proposals.  Her delegation 
supported the suggestion that the second week of the ne xt cluster start at a more appropriate time to 
ensure serious market access negotiations and that th e Chair hold consultations in this regard.  While 
noting that many delegations linked the servi ces negotiations to progress in other areas of 
negotiations,  she cautioned that it was not a fait-accompli  that once barriers to other areas were 
removed, the services negotiations would necessarily be able to move in a meaningful and valuable 
manner.  On domestic regulation, recognizing that the tabling of a text would facilitate a more 
expeditious negation, her delegation hoped that th ose proposals in contemplation would be submitted 
so that the Chair of the WPDR could begin the work on formulating the structure of the text and could 
come up with the necessary elements for Members to  better consult their constituencies.  Thanking 
the submission by the LDC Group, she stated that her capital would examine it carefully.  As a 
preliminary thought, noting that many activities incl uded in the request were largely taking place 
under Mode 1, she wondered whether LDCs had consider ed this new business model in those sectors.   
She stated that some analytical information had demonstrated high potential in many sectors under Mode 1.  This had been highlighted  in the plurilateral process as well. 
23. The representative of Argentina
 stated that his delegation had participated in almost all the 
plurilateral meetings.  Those meetings had been orga nized in two parts: technical clarifications and  TN/S/M/20 
 Page 7 
 
 
  explanations on the collective requests; and indications  to reflect the requests in offers.  Echoing the 
assessment made by Brazil, recalling that the firs t round of plurilateral meetings had seen an active 
participation and had demonstrat ed the potential for making progress in the services negotiations, he 
noted that the second round of plurilateral meeti ngs was not as productive as the first round.  He 
understood that this was because of the shortcomi ngs  of these meetings themselves (technical 
questions previously raised not sufficiently clarified and lack of indications a bout offers) as well as no 
progress at the political level in other areas of nego tiations (agriculture and NAMA).  He hoped that 
this fact was to be born in mind when Members or ganized future meetings.  Hoping that the June 
cluster would be flexible, he stressed that the ma rket access negotiations then needed to make real 
progress. 
24. The representative of Australia  noted that the degree of engagement in the plurilateral 
negotiations had been positive both in March-April a nd in the past week.  While agreeing to the view 
that the clarification and education phase had run its course for the time being, he noted that there had 
been some signalling of flexibilities in both rounds of plurilaterals.  He admitted that it was hard to 
see how the positive signals would be translated into offers in the absence of movement elsewhere in 
negotiations.  It was critical to have movement in all areas of negotiations.  The best way to breathe 
oxygen into the services negotiations was to make progress in agriculture and NAMA.  His delegation 
had also held serious bilateral market access negotia tions where the focus was to explore the scope for 
Members to narrow the gap between their current re gulatory practice and what was in their offers.  
Conscious of putting forward an improved offer, his delegation was in the process of consulting 
regulatory agencies and other stakeholders.  In te rms of future work, his delegation supported the 
suggestion that the meetings of the subsidiary bodies and the CTS regular session take place during 
the week of 19 June with focus on domestic regulati on.  His delegation wished to see a consolidated 
text on domestic regulation before the summer brea k.  His delegation also supported the suggestion 
that Members have another week of meetings in Ju ly depending on political momentum in other areas 
of negations and that the Chair hold consultations in this regard.   
25. The representative of Morocco  on behalf the African Group thanked the LDC Group for its 
collective request on Mode 4, which was a c ontribution to the market access negotiations, 
demonstrated the offensive approach of developing c ountries, and reflected their interest in services.  
On the plurilateral process, reiterating the capac ity constraints on African countries, he noted the 
absence of experts from capitals in the second roun d of plurilaterals, which was not as productive as 
the first one, despite the good faith of both reques ting and requested Members.  He hoped that the 
next round could avoid such a result. On the June clus ter, he stated that the first week was to be kept 
for meetings of the subsidiary bodies, with a focu s on domestic regulation.  Referring to the statement 
by Brazil, he agreed that the consolidated text on domestic regulation was to be prepared as soon as 
possible so that Members could hold internal consu ltations in time.  Regardi ng the second week of the 
June cluster, while his delegation was flexible a bout the idea of postponing it, he stressed that the 
meetings were to be well organized to facilitate  the participation of capital-based experts in both 
market access and rules.    
26. While agreeing with the assessment made by  some delegations on the second round of 
plurilaterals, the representative of Mexico  thought that the result was positive because these meetings 
allowed Members to have a clear picture of where po tential improvements were in terms of countries, 
sectors and sub-sectors.  The next step would depe nd on progress in other areas.  His delegation was 
holding intensive consultations for the preparati on of the revised offer.  Flexible about the 
organization of future work, his delegation could go along with the suggestion that the schedule for 
the week of 19 June be kept for the subsidiary b odies to meet and for the Special Session to deal with 
the LDC Modalities, and that the week scheduled for the market access negotiations be postponed.  
On domestic regulation, he urged Members to give great impetus to the negotiations.  He thought that 
it was time to give the Chair of the WPDR the manda te to come up with a consolidated text as quickly 
as possible. TN/S/M/20 
Page 8  
 
  27. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that her delegation had been involved in fourteen 
plurilateral meetings over the past ten days, tw elve of which as a requesting Member, two as a 
requested Member.  Her delegation was also coor dinator of the collective request on audiovisual 
services.  While sharing the sentiment expressed by other delegations, her de legation thought that 
there was still value-added in the second round of  plurilaterals because the process had allowed 
Members to clarify some technical issues.  Her de legation anticipated greater substance in revised 
offers Members were required to submit by the end of July.  She noted that the plurilateral approach 
supplemented the negotiation process in a positive way.  Any further plurilateral meetings needed to 
be decided on a case-by-case basis and more time was to be devoted to bilate ral negotiations.  On the 
organization of future work, her delegation could go along with the suggestion made by Canada.  She 
stressed that momentum in the services negotiations  was to be maintained.  Discussions on domestic 
regulation needed a full day during the first week and the road-map provided by the Chair of the WPDR was to be followed to have a consolidated text before the su mmer break.  The meetings for the 
second week of the next cluster could not take place too late as Members needed time to hold 
domestic consultations for the preparation of revised  offers.  In this rega rd, her delegation supported 
the Chair to hold consultations.   
28. The representative of Norway
 stated that his delegation had been encouraged by the 
plurilateral process so far.  In his delegation's vi ew, it had contributed distinctively to moving the 
services negotiations forward through important te chnical clarifications as well as indications on 
where there was room for new and/or improved commitm ents and where there were red lines.  In this 
sense, the plurilateral process combined with a re latively extensive round of bilaterals had enabled 
Members to advance their work.  He, however, not ed that after the second round of plurilateral 
meetings, it seemed that Members could not progr ess very much further through the plurilateral 
process before having seen the level of ambition in agriculture and NAMA in the form of full 
modalities.  While noting that Members had indicated  in plurilateral and bilateral meetings that 
political guidance was needed on the level of ambiti on in the services negotiations, he pointed out that 
the services negotiations were important in their own right and had their own dynamics and that 
parallel progress was necessary.  Pending developmen t in agriculture and NAMA, there were two 
main options: either wait and see or try to establish some sort of arena where Members could compare development in different areas to be able to see wh at the content of the overall package could look 
like.  His delegation thought that to sit back a nd wait and see was not an attractive option.  His 
delegation supported any effort to k eep up the momentum in the services negotiations in the run up to 
the important deadline of 31 July and would be open  to having plurilateral meetings towards the end 
of June. 
29. He reminded Members that the services negotiations  were more than market access.  In the 
weeks and months ahead Members had to make progress on the implementation of the LDC Modalities, S&D proposals as well as in the rules ar eas, especially domestic regulation. On the LDC 
Modalities, he thanked the Chair of the Special Se ssion for his informal consultations on the way 
forward, which were very helpful. His delegation would continue to play an active role in these 
consultations.  He reiterated that his delega tion were working on a communication aiming at 
providing the LDC Group with comprehensive res ponses as to how his delegation envisaged the 
implementation of the LDC Modalities.  His delegati on hoped to be able to table this communication 
in the near future.  With respect to domestic regulation, his delegation was encouraged by the 
increased level of participation in the discussions and the number of proposals on the table or in the 
pipeline.  His delegation supported the Chair of the WPDR to prepare a consolidated draft text based 
on the discussions and proposals so as to enable Me mbers to move into real text-based negotiations on 
domestic regulation by the summer break.  In conclu sion, he reiterated that his delegation was fully 
committed to reaching a services package that was commensurate with the level of ambition in other 
areas of the DDA.    TN/S/M/20 
 Page 9 
 
 
  30. The representative of Korea  thanked the LDC Group for its collective request on Mode 4.  On 
the plurilateral process, his delegation appreciated the efforts of the coordinating Member of each group.  Echoing the assessment by other delegati ons, he noted that there had been constructive 
discussions on technical issues at the plurilateral mee tings, which would contribute to the goal of the 
current round of negotiations.  In order to move into the next stage of the negotiations, momentum 
needed to be regained.  His delegation supported the suggestion by Canada with regard to the 
organization of the next cluster and were ready to cooperate with the Chair in his consultations.   
31. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked the LDC Group for tabling its request on 
Mode 4.  Her delegation would examine it carefully and would provide comments if necessary at the 
next opportunity.  Her delegation w as the coordinating Member of the plurilateral group on logistics, 
which had met for the second time on 22 May.  Co-sponsors had made fu rther elaborations on 
technical issues and had brought in new elemen ts including presentations on the importance and 
affiliation of different sectors and sub-sectors in th e supply chain and examination of the current stay 
of play.  She noted that exchanges in the plurilatera l meeting on logistics had been very constructive.  
Co-sponsors would continue to cons ider how to bring more new elements into the negotiations and 
how to bring the meetings into the next phase of  negotiations.  Her dele gation believed that the 
plurilateral process served two different purposes.  One purpose was educational or technical 
clarification, which had been usefully served.  She noted that the plurilateral meetings had been 
successful in focusing the minds of experts and enhancing their understandi ng,  which would be 
beneficial for them to prepare revised offers and participate in negotiations.  The other purpose of the 
plurilateral process was to serve as a negotiating to ol as envisaged in the Negotiating Guidelines and 
the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  She, how ever, noted that the plurilateral process had not 
unfolded in full in this regard because developmen t was needed in other areas before Members could 
move substantively in services. Although her dele gation was not keen to draw a linkage between 
services and other negotiating subjects, it had to rec ognize that services was one of the three pillars of 
the market access negotiations in this round.  In this context, her delega tion tended to agree with 
Canada and other delegations that th e next cluster needed to be caref ully organized.  The next cluster 
could start on 19 June with the first week devoted  to the CTS and subsidiary body meetings, with 
particular emphasis on domestic regulation and the implementation of the LDC Modalities. On 
domestic regulation, it was important to embark on the exercise to produce a cons olidated text so that 
domestic consultations could meaningfully commence.  As to the week devoted to the market access 
negotiations, her delegation was attr acted to the idea of postponing it until July when real progress 
could be seen.  In this regard, her delegati on supported the suggestion that the Chair hold 
consultations.  
32. The representative of Egypt  noted that the positive spirit remained in the second round of 
plurilateral negotiations where his de legation had participated in thirteen plurilateral meetings, with, 
unfortunately, only construction services experts from capital and officials from the Ministry of Trade 
present at these meetings.  His delegation had also  held bilateral negotia tions, addressing not only 
market access,  but also issues of domestic regul ation and the LDC Modalities.  While noting that the 
second round of plurilateral meetings  had contributed to further clarification of technical issues and 
Members' positions, his delegation thought that the va lue-added in this round was less than the first 
round, hoping that the bilateral negotiations, the ma in negotiating method, would gain more ground in 
the next cluster.  His delegation was fully co mmitted to constructively engaging in the services 
negotiations, and domestic consultati ons among stakeholders were being undertaken in capital for the 
preparation of the revised offer, which were a complex exercise, depending not only on the country's 
regulatory regime, but also on developments in other negotiating areas.  His delegation hoped that 
such developments would be supportive so as to achie ve the collective high level of ambition for this 
round.  Regarding the next cluster, his delegation could support the general approach proposed by the 
Chair.  He also thought that the proposal by Braz il was worth considering.  As the Chair of the CTFS, 
he himself was holding consultations with interest ed Members on the need for his body to meet 
during the next cluster. In addition, he thanke d the LDC Group for its submission and urged Members TN/S/M/20 
Page 10  
 
  to consider it carefully.  He also supported the st atement made by Morocco on behalf of the African 
Group.  
33. The representative of Japan
 noted that the plurilateral and bila teral meetings over the past two 
weeks were a good experience. Recalling that the overall purpose of having these meetings was to 
maintain momentum and to provide supplementary input to the negotiation process, he thought that 
the second round of negotiations had been good enough to meet expectations in this regard.  He noted 
from the plurilateral and bilateral meetings that  many Members were undertaking serious domestic 
consultations for the purpose of the revised offers .  He also noted that Members had drawn links 
between services and other negotiating areas, as well as between various services sectors.  He thought 
that it was time to move into the real negotia ting phase where Members were to provide adequate 
indications on their upcoming revised offers, which could be informal or conditional.  His delegation 
was coordinator of two plurilateral meetings: c onstruction services and maritime transport.  Co-
sponsors had provided very useful inputs to these meetings, addressing questions raised at the first 
meeting.  More specifically, at the meeting on ma ritime transport, Members had had an important 
exchange of questions and answers on the model sch edule; at the meeting on construction services,  
co-sponsors had further clarified the focus and priori ty of the request.  Therefore, he believed that 
these meetings had added value to the process. 
34. With respect to the next cluster, his delega tion could support Canada's proposal that the 
schedule for the week of 19 June be retained and that the appropriate timing for the market access 
negotiations needed to be decided through the Chair' s consultations.  Referring to the statements made 
by the European Communities and Norway, he thou ght that the linkage between services and other 
negotiating areas needed to be used for the purpose of promoting the services negotiations.  In this 
regard, instructions from the ministerial level might  be necessary.  He believed that the plurilateral 
requests might be the focus of future services negotia tions.  On the issue of information sharing, his 
delegation was interested in computer and rela ted services, telecommunication services, construction 
services, distribution services, financial services, ma ritime transport, architectural and engineering 
services, and audiovisual services.  His delegation wi shed to have good interactions with Members in 
the next round of meetings, and would prepare to respond to some priorities of developing countries 
as well.  With respect to domestic regulation, notin g that a number of proposals had been tabled, he 
thought that substantive discussions on these proposals were needed in order to give proper guidance 
to the Chair of the WPDR and enable him to come  up with a consolidated text before the summer 
break.  Finally, he thanked the LDC Group for their request on Mode 4.  
35. The representative of China  stated that his delegation had actively participated in the two 
rounds of plurilateral negotiations with experts from about ten regula tory and industrial agencies, and 
found the process useful.  He, however, reiterated that  the plurilateral approach was voluntary and did 
not replace bilateral talks.  He noted that his dele gation had held bilateral talks with eight Members 
during the last cluster and with seven Members in this round of meetings.  These bilateral talks had 
highlighted each other's requests and had further clarified domestic situations and concerns.  His 
delegation noted that some Members were already ab le to report progress in the preparation of offers, 
while domestic consultations were still going on in many other Members.  Red lines had been drawn 
by many Members and it was still not clear to what extent plurilateral requests could be met in the near future. This might be due to lack of a cleare r picture in other areas of negotiations.  He pointed 
out that, although in many sectors his country was a requested Member, its existing commitments 
were comprehensive with a broad sectoral coverage and a high level of liberalization.  In many areas, 
its liberalization commitments were even better than  the offers made by many requesting Members.  
He believed that there was very limited room for hi s delegation to further improve its commitments as 
requested by co-sponsors of plurilateral requests.  His delegation noted that many Members, either 
developed or developing, had expressed their resp ective sensitivities in certain areas for further 
liberalization. Since his country was a newly acced ed developing Member, its  sensitivities in some 
areas needed to be accommodated in this round.  Gi ven the timeframe set by ministers in Hong Kong  TN/S/M/20 
 Page 11 
 
 
  and possible progress in agriculture and NAMA talks,  more momentum was needed in the services 
negotiations. 
36. Maritime transport, Mode 4, and MFN exempti ons constituted his delegation's priorities in the 
services negotiations.  He noted that maritime transport was very important for the healthy 
development of international trade.  This sector w as labour-intensive and thus was of export interest 
to developing countries. Progress in maritime tran sport would be very important to achieve the 
development goal in the services negotiations.  As a major trading nation, his country promoted a 
liberal and efficient maritime transport sector.  The same could be said for the negotiations on Mode 4 which, together with the negotiations on maritime transport, could serve as the locomotive for the 
services negotiations in general.  MFN exemptions we re inconsistent with the basic rule of the WTO 
and needed to be resolved.  He urged developed Members to move forward in these areas so as to set 
a positive tone for the services negotiations.  His de legation would continue to hold active domestic 
consultations and would study the re quests addressed to it.  He stressed that domestic consultations 
were as important as negotiations in Geneva in  terms of keeping momentum and making further 
progress.  As Members were preparing the second r ound of revised offers, more attention was to be 
given to domestic consultations.  On  the arrangement of the next clus ter, his delegation was flexible 
and looked forward to a productive and successful outc ome.  With respect to the implementation of 
the LDC Modalities, his delegation supported the pr oposal by Canada that the Chair of the CTS 
Special Session report to Members on his consultations.   
37. The representative of India
 stated that the combination of plurilaterals and bilaterals was the 
right way to go.  His delegation was the coordina tor of two plurilateral groups: Mode 4 and cross-
border supply, which had met for the second time addressing some outstanding technical issues and 
updating on what was possible or impossible for re vised offers.  From the perspective of his 
delegation, the second round of plur ilateral negotiations had met its e xpectation and did not have less 
value.  On the issue of future work, while notin g that the balance between services and other areas 
was critical, he cautioned that Members were not to  lose sight of the balance within the services 
negotiations. He believed that to address existing as ymmetries would be an important incentive in 
terms of providing momentum in the entire negotiati ons.  What was important was to translate what 
had been achieved in plurilaterals and bilaterals into meaningful re vised offers.  At the multilateral 
level, domestic regulation and the implementation of the LDC Modalities were the most important 
issues.  His delegation attached importance to domestic regulation because of its own standing as well as its complementary role to market access.  Noting certain momentum in the domestic regulation 
negotiations, he stressed that the Chair of the WPDR  needed to be allowed to start consultations on 
the consolidated text before the summer break.  On  the issue of the next cluster, he thought that 
flexibility was important in terms of time and struct ure.  He agreed to the suggestion that the first 
week be devoted to subsidiary bodies, the C TS Regular Session, and the CTS Special Session 
addressing the LDC Modalities and S&D proposals.  He  also supported the suggestion that the Chair 
hold consultations on the timing and structure of the second week of the cluster.  Finally, he thanked 
the LDC Group for its submission on Mode 4, thinking it was a positive signal.  
38. The representative of New Zealand
 stated that her delegation had participated in all the 
plurilateral meetings over the past ten days, as either co-sponsor or recipient.  As in the first round, 
her delegation found these meetings for the most pa rt to be a useful clarificatory and educative 
exercise.  However, whether these groups needed to meet again was to be decided on a case-by-case 
basis.  Her delegation was coordina tor of two groups: private education and air transport services.  
While the group on air transport had not met in th is round, the group on private education services had 
met for the second time and had had further comp rehensive technical discussions, particularly on 
quality assurance issues and fundamental questions of type of limitations in scheduling commitments.  
Co-sponsors would respond to these pe rtinent questions in writing.  Her delegation would investigate 
various options in both groups for fu rther engagement.  In addition, her delegation had held bilateral 
meetings in order to gain a clearer idea of what  key trade partners intended to do to improve their TN/S/M/20 
Page 12  
 
  current offers and thus to calibrate itself.  This exer cise was partly successful.  On the issue of the next 
cluster, her delegation could see the merit of the suggestion that the market access negotiations be 
delayed to take advantage of momentum to be ge nerated in other areas of negotiations and to allow 
more clarity about the shape of the services package to emerge.  Her delegation agreed with the point 
that the internal issues of services, particularly  domestic regulation and the implementation of the 
LDC Modalities, required solutions, and that the wo rk of the WPDR and other subsidiary bodies was 
to proceed as planned in the week of 19 June.  Her delegation looked forward to consultations by the 
Chair of the CTS Special Session in this regard.  On domestic regulation, her delegation agreed that 
the Chair of the WPDR was to be given a clear ma ndate to produce a draft text based on the current 
and any pending contributions before the summer br eak.  She finally thanked the LDC Group for its 
submission on Mode 4.   
39. The representative of Thailand
 stated that in the second round of plurilateral negotiations, 
despite absence of experts from capital, his delegati on had done its best to signal the intention to 
remain engaged.  His delegation noted that ther e had been indications of possible flexibility and 
resolutions of outstanding technical issues and that bi lateral activities had been very intensive.  How 
the June-July negotiations in services would unfol d would also depend on de velopment in other key 
areas of negotiations.  His delegation was ready to work on the consolidated text of domestic 
regulation and on the LDC Modalities.  Thailand would kick off in mid- June another round of 
comprehensive industrial consultations and inte r-agency coordination leading towards the second 
revised offer.  Thinking that it would be better to  have the next round of market access negotiations 
later, his delegation supported the Chai r's consultations in this regard.   
40. The representative of Malaysia  stated that her delegation had participated in plurilateral and 
bilateral meetings from 15-23 May.  This was a clear indication that her delegation continued to 
support the market access negotiations.  While its offer tabled so far was substa ntial and was the result 
of comprehensive and intensive c onsultations, her capital was still wo rking hard to analyse areas in 
which further improvements could be undertaken.  While domestic consultations for the preparation 
of the second revised offer was underway, her delega tion was not ready to provide a clear indication 
in a formal and firm commitment.  Her delegati on had taken note of follo w-up clarifications and 
answers on respective requests by co-sponsors, whic h had provided additiona l information and would 
be conveyed to capital.   Her delegation also noted that bilateral meetings had become more focused 
owing to the value-added the plurilateral discussions had contributed.  In Members' anticipation of the 
upcoming deadline for the second revised offers, her delegation wished to remind Members that the 
negotiations on GATS rules and dom estic regulation would enhan ce the overall balance of the 
services negotiations and that development in th ese areas would complement the progress so far 
achieved in the market access area.  Recalling th at the Doha Round was a development round, she 
reiterated the importance of a sound development p ackage in view of the target to conclude the 
negotiations by the end of this year.  In this regard, she thanked the LDC Group for its submission 
Job(06)/155. 
41. The representative of Pakistan  stated that the benefit of the two rounds of plurilateral 
meetings could not be denied.  For her delegati on, an exercise had been established between capital 
and Geneva.  The experts from her country were sati sfied with this round of meetings and more able 
to make well informed decisions, despite the fact that her delegation had not had great expectations 
for the plurilaterals.  On domestic regulation, her delegation wished to see progress in this regard and 
appreciated the efforts made by the Chair of the WPDR.  Regarding the organization of future work, 
she thought that the week of 19 June could proceed as planned and that plurila teral meetings could be 
held if co-sponsors believed that they might be fru itful.  It would be up to individual Members to 
decide whether they needed to  have capital-based experts participate in these meetings.  
42. Referring to the preliminary comments made by the United States on the submission of the 
LDC Group, the representative of Zambia  stated that in making the collective request on Mode 4, the  TN/S/M/20 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Group were fully cognisant of the fact that in services one mode of supply was not necessarily a 
substitute for another.  Taking into consideration that all modes of supply were complementary and 
that the degree of complementarity varied from s ector to sector, the Group had identified the sectors 
of interest to it and believed that its comparativ e advantage in globe services trade was in Mode 4 
which had a complementary role to play in all mod es of supply and in almost all services sectors.   
The request was also based on the f act that the need for the provision of services by natural persons or 
for natural persons to support the provision of services was increasing, not just in developed countries, 
but also in developing countries.   The Group u nderstood that the provision of services under Mode 4 
involved the temporary movement of natural pe rsons.  Such temporary nature, as opposed to 
permanent nature, dealt with immediate needs of domestic market in the host country and made no 
harm to domestic needs of the source country.  The Group was aware of the figures for natural 
persons from LDCs who were providing services.  While aware of the complementarity between Mode 1 and Mode 4, the Group noted that the increasing provision of services under Mode 1 due to 
technological advances was also supported by the tem porary movement of natural persons.  The same 
situation existed for Mode 3 and Mode 4.  The Group looked forward to positive comments from 
Members on its request on Mode 4.  Referring to the Group's previous submission on the 
implementation of the LDC Modalities, the representa tive of Zambia urged Members to present their 
comments in writing soon as they had mentioned in bilateral consultations.  The Group hoped that 
time could be allotted to discussions on the implem entation of the LDC Modalities during the week of 
19 June.  
43. The representative of Switzerland
 stated that his delegation had participated in several 
plurilateral and bilateral meetings over the past tw o weeks, which were useful and complementary.  
The plurilateral negotiations, after tw o rounds of the exercise, proved to be able to fulfil Members' 
expectation due to the positive spirit of particip ants.  On the organization of future work, his 
delegation was flexible and could go along with the proposal made by Canada in terms of timing and 
structure of the next cluster.  While noting that some plurilateral meetings might be needed on a case-
by-case basis, his delegation's priority was to ensu re sufficient time for bilateral meetings during the 
next cluster.  Regarding domestic  regulation, his delegation also sought concrete progress and wished 
to see a consolidated text soon.  His delegation a ttached importance to the implementation of the LDC 
Modalities and would carefully consider the requ est on Mode 4 submitted by the LDC Group.  He 
reminded Members that the focus of work in the coming weeks was to meet the 31 July deadline for 
the submission of revised offers, both in Geneva and in capitals.  His de legation had submitted its 
draft revised offer internally for consultation and approval, which included proposals for a number of 
improvements in several sectors .   
44. The representative of Singapore  stated that his delegation had participated in fourteen of the 
total fifteen plurilateral meetings held over the p ast two weeks, as either recipient or requesting 
Member.  The plurilateral meeting on telecommunica tions coordinated by hi s delegation had provided 
further useful technical clarifications.  He noted that Members, especially developing Members, had 
been engaged in the process, notwithstanding th e fact that other negotiating areas were facing 
difficulties.  Such good faith and efforts of Members was to be recognized.  While services were to be 
addressed in their own right, the final services o ffers would depend on the overall progress in other 
areas.  A balance had to be struck between va rious aspects of the services negotiations.  His 
delegation would continue to do its best to contribute to facilitating the services negotiation, bearing 
in mind the 31 July deadline for the submission of se cond revised offers.  Finally, he said that he had 
taken note of all comments Members had made on domestic regulation. 
45. The representative of Colombia  stated that his delegation had participated in twelve 
plurilateral meetings over the past two weeks, in f our of them as a requesting Member and in eight of 
them as a recipient.  His delegation found the process useful as the information and clarification it had 
gathered from the meetings might help it deal with the requests.  He noted that in the second round of 
plurilateral meetings recipients had not had much to offer due to  the short time between the two TN/S/M/20 
Page 14  
 
  rounds and doubts about progress in agriculture and NAMA.  His delegation agreed that the next 
cluster was to start with the negotiations on domesti c regulation in order to make progress in this 
regard and produce a consolidated text before th e summer break.  To organize meetings for the second 
week of the next cluster, sufficient time was needed for capitals to prepare revised offers that were to 
be submitted by the end of July.  His delegatio n would continue to contribute to the services 
negotiations.  Thanking the LDC Group for its su bmission on Mode 4, he wondered whether it was 
linked to the implementation of the LDC Modalities.    
46. The representative of the United States
 stated that her delegation took note of the statement 
made by Zambia and looked forward to further cons ultations.  She pointed out that in accordance with 
the data her delegation had gathered, services were actually supplied through Mo de 1 in certain LDCs 
in some sectors listed in the LDC request on Mo de 4.  While understanding the complementarity 
between different modes of supply, she wondered where such complementarity might fit as Members 
engaged in the GATS Article IV negotiations to e nhance the implementation of the LDC Modalities.  
She reiterated the constraints the United States was f acing with respect to Mode 4.  In addition, she 
wondered whether the Special Session of the Coun cil was the proper forum to address the LDCs' 
request on Mode 4. Finally, she sought clarifica tions from Zambia on its request for written comments 
from Members, noting that it was difficult for her delegation to make formal submissions for the 
comments it made at meetings, which were in fact recorded in minutes.  
47. The representative of Kenya  noted the momentum generated in the services negotiations by 
the plurilateral process.  Although not part of this  process, his delegation ha d engaged in bilateral 
negotiations with a number of Members, which were quite useful.  His delegation was keen to see this 
momentum reflected in high quality of offers, especia lly in sector of interest to developing countries 
as a way of injecting development content in the ser vices negotiations.  He shared the observations by 
other delegations about the linka ge between services and other areas of negotiations, which could not 
be avoided and had an impact on the extent to wh ich Members dealt with the services negotiations on 
their own merit.  Therefore, the planning and timing of  the next services cluster was crucial in order to 
ensure that it would be productive.  On the LDC Modalities, he thanked the LDC Group for its request 
on Mode 4 and hoped to see Members' commitmen t in the implementation of the LDC Modalities 
fulfilled. 
48. The representative of Zambia  stated that the LDC Group was committed to engaging in the 
services negotiations.  Apart from submitting the request  to the Special Session, the Group would also 
follow up the submission through the request-offer pr ocess.  Referring to the question raised by the 
United States regarding written comments, she expl ained that the Group did not suggest that the 
comments or responses be presented to the Special Session by Members.  Concerned that so far only one Member had made comments on the LDCs' pr evious submission, the Group requested more 
Members to make specific comments so as to enga ge in discussions on the implementation of the 
LDC Modalities.   
49. The Chair
 noted that Members had made an assess ment of the second round of plurilateral 
meetings and that the LDC Group had presented its co llective request on Mode 4.  On the issue of 
how to organize the next cluster, he noted the su ggestion that the cluster be split into two separate 
weeks.  The first week would start on 19 June as planned for the subsidiary bodies to meet with a 
focus on domestic regulation and for the Special Se ssion of the Council to address the implementation 
of the LDC Modalities.  With respect to the sec ond week of the cluster normally devoted to the 
market access negotiations and the Special Session of  the Council, it was suggested that the week be 
postponed to the first half of July and that the Chair of the Special Session hold consultations to 
decide on how to specifically organize meetings for this week.  He hoped that these suggestions were 
acceptable to all.  
50. It was so agreed .   TN/S/M/20 
 Page 15 
 
 
  C. OTHER BUSINESS  
51. The representative of Japan  stated that his delegation had introduced a paper on the 
implementation of the LDC Modalities at the Council's informal meeting of 8 May.  
52. The Chair  suggested that Council take note of all th e statements made at the meeting before 
he adjourned the meeting.  
53. It was so agreed . 
 
 
__________