RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
13 February  2024 
(24-1274) Page: 1/8 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
29 January  2024 Original: English  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
DEDICATED DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD AND IN VIRTUAL FORMAT ON 29 JANUARY  2024 
Chair person: H.E. Ms Usha Dwarka -Canabady  (Mauritius), Facilitator of the  
E-commerce Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  and the Moratorium  
1.1.  The Chair person  said that, a s indicated in the convening notice ICN/GC/17  and its revision, the 
purpose of the meeting was to report on the group consultation s she had held on 17  January  2024 
and to continue Members' discussions on a possible draft Ministerial Decision.  In her view, the 
consultations had generally been constructive , and she wished to thank the 30 or so delegations 
that attended.  In th ose consultations,  she had recalled that there were three draft Ministerial 
Decisions being considered . The first was  WT/GC/W /909/Rev.2  from Canada, Switzerland and other 
co-sponsors which  had been recently circulated.  The second submission was from South  Africa in 
document WT/GC/W/911 . The third document  was WT/GC/W/916  from the ACP  Group.  She had also 
noted that the drafts  on the table , as well as the discussion held in  December , had allowed 
delegations to identify some common elements  on which they seemed to be converging 
towards  consensus . 
1.2.  The first of these  elements was the need to pursue  the reinvigorated work under the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce, as per the 1998 mandate set out in WT/L/274  while keeping 
a particular focus on the development dimension.  Second, taking note of the constructive 
engagement in the Dedicated Discussions held the previous  year as well as welcoming continued 
opportunities to cooperate with IGOs and relevant stakeholders as agreed upon  by Members.  Thirdly, 
instructing the General Council to review the work under the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce , including with regard to work carried out in the relevant bodies and to report to the next 
Session of the Ministerial Conference.  
1.3.  In light of th ose elements, she had asked delegations whether they agreed  that th ose elements 
could be part of the MC13 Ministerial Decision on e -commerce . She had also recalled that some of 
the submissions had contained additional elements, including the creation of a level playing field . 
She had therefore  asked  a second  question , whether there were any other elements that delegations 
wished to see reflected, bearing in mind the preference to maintain the structure and brevity of  
recent Ministerial  Decisions . She reported that there were still differences on the moratorium, and 
in that regard, she had sought  Members ' views on whether compromised language could be found 
or perhaps  this was something for the Ministers to decide.  
1.4.  In terms of the way forward and given the Member -driven nature of work, she had suggested 
that the proponents of the th en three drafts  get together to produce a single t ext for consideration 
by all at the present Dedicated Discussion.  She had said that should there not be an agreement, she 
would consider su bmitting a facilitator 's draft, b ut only as the last option because this was a 
Member -driven organi zation.  
1.5.  Overall , what she had  sensed was a general agreement to include the common elements and 
to proceed with her suggested way forward, which was to encourage the proponents to come forward 
with a single document . With respect to the moratorium , she noted that  some proponents of it s 
extension  had suggested that the text should clearly indicate the majority support for extending it 
until MC14.  They had reiterated that they could not agree to terminate the moratorium as suggested WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 2 - 
 
  in WT/GC/W/911 . Others, on the other hand, had noted th at while they were willing to consider the 
common elements, they could not support language  that sought to extend the moratorium as 
suggested in other proposed draft  Ministerial Decisions.  
1.6.  In concluding her report, she added that , following the consultatio ns, another draft Ministerial 
Decision had been circulated the previous week by India in document WT/GC/W/922 , bringing the 
total number of draft proposals  on the table to f our. 
1.7.  The Chairperson suggested to proceed with the present meeting as follows: she would first 
invite India to introduce its proposal . Then she would  invite Canada and Switzerland to introduce 
their revised proposal on behalf of the  co-sponsors. Thereafter she would invite all the proponents 
to report on their consultations and any progress made towards drafting a single text . Finally , she 
would  open the floor to all Members  for their views on how to move forward . 
1.8.  The representative  of India delivered the following statement:  
1.9.  We are pleased to introduce our proposal which was submitted on  23 January  2024, as 
WT/GC/W/922. This draft Decision notes that the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
mandate has been there since 1998.  It notes the de ep digital divide, which afflicts developing and 
least-developed  countries and the need to address the same. We then speak about the uneven 
spread of global electronic commerce and the inequitable gains which arise from  the digital 
economy.  It then acknowl edges the importance of work in the Work Programme in examining trade 
related issues relating to global electronic commerce, taking into account the economic, financial 
and development needs of developing countries.   
1.10.   The draft decision  text then says that we agree to build on the progress since the last 
Minister ial Conference, which we have achieved in this format , and to intensify the work under the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  based on the mandate as set out in  WT/GC/W/ 274, 
particularly in line with its development  dimension. We  then instruct the G eneral Council to hold 
periodic reviews based on the reports that may be submitted by  the various bodies  and to  report to 
the next session of the Minister ial Conference.   
1.11.   The representative  of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.12.   Thank you for your continued leadership on these important discussions on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce and Moratorium, and particularly on this process ahead of 
MC13. The draft joint submission WT/GC/W/909 , presented under  the W ork Programme on 
Electro nic Commerce  and at the General Council , intends to capture the progress accomplished since 
MC12. It aims at continuing work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and extending 
the Moratorium until the next Ministerial Conference. We have listene d carefully and have been 
attentive to the comments made on all three submissions , WT/GC/W/909 , WT/GC/W/911 , and 
WT/GC/W/916 , in the context of the December meetings of the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce and General Council, and in dedicated bilateral outreach.  
1.13.   Reflecting  on what we have heard from a cross -section of Members, we have made 
amendments to our joint submission, and have circulated a revised version late yesterday, 
WT/GC/W/909/Rev.2 . The amendments to our joint submissio n incorporate:  
• further enhancing the importance of the development dimension in pursuing the work 
under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce ; 
• the collaboration between the WTO and other international organisations and 
stakeholders; and,  
• the continuat ion of work on the questions related to the moratorium based on 
empirical evidence.  
1.14.   We look forward  to today's consultations and look forward to further engagement with all 
interested Members ahead of MC13.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.15.   The representative  of Barbados , on behalf of the  ACP Group , delivered the following 
statement:   
1.16.    It is recalled  that at your informal consultations on 1 7 January  2024, you outlined the 
following common elements across the three dra ft Decisions, which could be used as a basis for a 
draft Decision , namely the  need to continue reinvigorating the work under the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce , while keeping a particular focus on the development dimension ; noting the 
constructive engag ement in the Dedicated Discussions held last year , as well as welcoming continued 
opportunities to cooperate with other IGOs and relevant  stakeholders, as agreed by Members ; 
instructing the General Coun cil to periodically review the work of the Work Progra mme on Electronic 
Commerce , includ ing as it relates to the work carried out by relevant bodies ; and, to report to the 
next Session of the Minister ial Conference.  Another element that came up during various 
consultations  was continued discussions on the definition, scope  and impact of the moratorium on 
the imposition of customs duties on electronic transmissions.  
1.17.   Secondly, you instructed the co-sponsors of the three draft Decisions on the Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce  received as of that date , namely WT/GC/W/916 , WT/GC/W/911  and 
WT/GC/W/909 /Rev.2, to consult amongst themselves with the aim of coming up with a single t ext 
for consideration by all.  We can report that the co-sponsors , the ACP Group, South Africa , Canada 
and Switzerland , met on two occasions on 19  and 22 January.  The basis of our discussions was a 
non-paper which used the ACP Group draft Decision as its basis and in corporated major elements 
from the two other drafts, including a discussion in the General Council about the feasibility of a 
fund; discussions on trade -related topics, including on regulatory practises, technologies and 
mechanisms to support developing countries and LDCs ; and the role that the WTO can play in 
identifying gaps in support  of addressing the digital divide and promoting investm ents in developing 
domestic SME platforms.  
1.18.   We wish to extend our gratitude to South Africa, Switzerland and Canada for what we consider 
to be an honest attempt to come up with mutually acceptable language. The discussions in our view 
were productive as they reinforced our common understanding that the ele ments highlighted at the 
17 January consultations  could form the basis of convergence for a possible MC 13 Decision on the 
Work Programme on E lectronic Commerce.  
1.19.   On the moratorium, however, we were unable to agree on how to reflect o ur divergent views 
on th e inclusion of this element in an all -encompassing Decision.  We understand that the issue of 
the moratorium will, at least for some, be regarded as an issue which can only be settled at the 
political level by Ministers  at MC13 . The ACP Group continues to b e of the view that the elements 
outlined in its text can serve as a basis for delivering on an MC13 Decision.  
1.20.   The representative  of Canada  delivered the following statement:  
1.21.   I would  like to provide you with a high -level summary on behalf of Canada and Switzerland 
as representatives of proponents of WT/GC/W/909/Rev.2 . Following your guidance from the 
consultations of 17 January for representatives of proponents of draft dec isions on e -commerce 
WT/GC/W/909/Rev.2 , WT/GC/W/911 , and WT/GC/W/916  to come together and determine whether 
there was a basis for moving forward on one single text, the authors of these three draft decisions 
met with this objective in mind. We wor ked on the basis of a brainstorming document incorporating 
the common elements you noted in the consultations as a basis, specifically to:  
a. Continue  work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, with the 
development dimension as a focus;  
b. Continue en gagement with stakeholders and international organizations;  
c. Instruct the periodic review of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce; and  
d. Address the moratorium.  
1.22.   From our perspective, the discussions were constructive and took place in a collaborative 
spirit. While we managed to identify a number of areas of increasing convergence , the clear 
divergence on how to approach the moratorium made it impossible to develop  a comprehensive 
common draft decision. For the co -sponsors of WT/GC/W/909/Rev.2 , it is important that all 
elements, including a positive element on the moratorium, be included together in one draft decision. WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 4 - 
 
  We would like to thank the delegatio ns of Barbados on behalf of the ACP Group and South Africa, 
for their positive and productive engagement.  
1.23.   The representative  of South Africa  delivered the following statement:   
1.24.   First, let me take the opportunity to thank the distinguished representatives of Canada , 
Switzerland  and Barba dos on behalf of the ACP Group for the very constructive discussions that we 
held, as well as the reports furnished today, which in our view, are an accurate reflection of the 
discussions that we had.  
1.25.   I will not take too much more of your time other than just to indicate that we do take  note o f 
the presentation of WT/GC/W/ 922 from India , the text that was received last week , and we also 
thank India for the presentation today . I wish  to indicate that my delegat ion would be  prepared to 
continue the very fruitful discussions and we hope that India would also be invited to participate, 
given that it also shared its own text and would be good to make an effort that takes into 
consideration as broader a range of view s as possible.  
1.26.   The representative  of India delivered the following  statement:  
1.27.   Our paper was submitted on 22 January as the delegation of Barbados noted. The 
two meetings  took place on that day and before that day. In that regard , we were not part of the 
group consultation , but since our paper came out, we engaged with various delegations in a bilateral 
format,  and we thank them for their engagement. We will continue to dis cuss this issue with 
interested delegations and take the process forward.  
1.28.   The Chairperson  said that she  was hoping that by 12 pm the present day, she would have a 
common text, but she had  not receive d anything . In that regard, she assumed  that there was no  
common text, but that Members were not  far away from that common text except on the part 
relating to the moratorium. She asked whether these consultations could be pursue d further . She 
said she was  happy to try and initiate the first  consultation or she co uld leave it to the proponents. 
She noted that the  ACP Group had the highest number of co-sponsors and could perhaps convene 
open-ended consultations and include all interested delegations.  She was therefore encouraging 
delegations  to try and find something at least on the Work Programme part and to work together 
first, without the presence of the Facilitator , and within time limits . She noted the importance of 
having a common text on the part related to the Work Programme . 
1.29.   She noted that the past Ministerial Decisions  had been  very short paragraphs that sa id what 
needed to be said. This time Members  might need to elaborate a little bit on the  Work Programme 
on Electronic Commerce  and the Dedicated Discussions held during the year to  acknowledge the  
work done, so Ministers  would know that delegations had  been doing some work . Based on what 
she had heard from Members, delegations had more or less  agree d on the main elements  on the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce . That being said, 12 February  was the last date on which 
she could meet with delegations  and where there was availability to meet given that,  on 14  February  
there would be a Special General Council to which she would have to report as Facilitator. In that 
regar d, she would hope for  a single text by th at time. 
1.30.   With respect  to the moratorium, she wished to inform delegations what she had seen in the 
draft texts being considered. In her view, it was good to take stock and then to decide on the best 
way of dealing w ith this. The first option was the wording in document  WT/GC/W/909/Rev.2 : "We 
agree to maintain  the current practi ce of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions 
until the 14th Minister ial Conference  and to hold further deliberations on the scope, definition and 
impact of the moratorium, including  through  the continued examination of empirical evidence ". She 
said that most delegations would know that this sound ed very much like what had been seen before 
in previous Minist erial Decisions.  
1.31.   Option two was in document WT/GC/W/916  and it said in a very similar manner : "We agree 
to maintain the current practi ce of not imposing customs duties  on electronic transmissions until the 
14th Session of the Minister ial Conference and  agree to hold further deliberations  and gather 
empirical evidence on the scope, definition and impact of the moratorium, with periodic updates to 
the meetings of the General Council, as well as on the Work Programme ". She noted that  between 
option one and two, she personally could not  see much difference  and believed  that there might be WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 5 - 
 
  room for merging them into one option.  In that regard, she  would consider ask ing the proponents 
of these two proposals to  see whether they c ould merge this in to one option.  
1.32.   Moving on to the other two options. The third option contained in WT/GC/W/911  was as 
follows:  "We agree to terminate the moratorium on the imposition of customs duties on electronic 
transmissions". The fourth option was no reference to the moratorium  at all. She further noted that 
here again,  option s three and four , in her view , were going in the same direction  in terms of the 
outcome , not necessarily in the same direction in terms of what need ed to be reflected in the 
Decision. She wondered  whether they should  remain as separate options , or whether there was 
some room for merging and not making reference to the moratorium . But the question of how this 
should be reflect ed was where she wished  to hear from Members , because if Members  were maki ng 
proposals, they should not be denied  putting what they  had said on the table as option s. She recalled 
that it was up to all Ministers  to decide what to do , and for that, they need ed to see what the options 
were. 
1.33.   She continued to say that, in her view, the option was to extend or to terminate  the 
moratorium . She therefore sought Members' views  as to whether this could  be reflected as t wo basic 
options in the document , i.e., an either /or situation , or whether  all the four options could be included 
and left in the text for consideration  by Ministers?  Was there a preferred mode?  Was anybody 
uncomfortable with the listing of the options?  She noted that there was no objection . She continued 
to ask whether there was  anything innovative  that anyone could think o f to deal with this  and 
whether delegations wish ed to consult further and revert . 
1.34.   The Chairperson urged delegations to work together towards a text on the first part on the 
Work Programme  and to try to reflect on how the options on the moratorium should pl ay out, 
whether option one and two could be merged. For option s three and four , she said that she stood 
guided as to whether proponents wished  these to remain as separate options or  preferred just 
one option . 
1.35.   The representative  of the United Kingdom  delivered the following statement:  
1.36.   I am not sure it wise, Ambassador, but I did just want to come in and reflect on some of the 
options that you  have put to us. Firstly, a genuine thanks from the UK's perspective  to all the 
proponents for all their work s ince your consultations, it does feel like there  has been a genuine 
attempt to  streamline. As you say, I think there are some elements that we  are not too far apart  
on. C learly , it is disappointing, but not totally surprising that we have  not managed to fi nd 
convergence on all the elements,  and I agree that we should continue to strive for further 
streamlining where we can and certainly from the UK perspective, we stand ready to support those 
efforts . 
1.37.   On your options , and this is an initial reflection from  the UK , I think that there is room to 
merge options one and two and perhaps separately for the proponents of options three and four to 
continue thinking about whether there is any room for streamlining. But as we set out in your 
consultations , I think in any outcome that we put to Ministers , we will want to ensure that Ministers  
are clear about the balance of those options. So , if they are listed  as four individual options, we will 
want to make it very clear that there is still an overwhelming m ajority of support from Members  for 
an extension . That means that it would be preferable to keep the option s separate. I appreciate that 
would possibly mean fo ur different  options going to Ministers , but if that  is the best way of 
demonstrating the balance  of support, then perhaps that is something that we would also want to 
consider . I would be interested in views from other Members  and that  is just some initial reflections 
from our side.  
1.38.   The representative  of the United States  delivered the following stat ement:  
1.39.   I thought about what you said just now, making lives easier for our Ministers  was a good 
point. I do worry about having too many options for them to consider, but those four options are 
helpful  for us to consider . Mindful of keeping this a Member -driven process and also hearing  that 
India's draft Decision came following the consultations that had already been conducted , I wonder 
whether it  is worthwhile encouraging the proponents to go back and attempt to merge the now 
four proposals on the table and also discus s the four options that you have thrown out there and 
then try to come back to us with a common text.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.40.   The Chairperson  thanked the United States and said that that was what she was trying to 
say. The proponents  should go back and do som e more work and further streamline. She  encourage d 
all the proponents and anybody else who want ed to join and facilitate this, to go back and  come up 
with one common text  outlining where they would have agreed upon on the Work Programme and 
what to do in f uture . Secondly, she urged them to consider what options were there on the table for 
the moratorium . She noted that the meeting had discussed  whether option one and two c ould be 
merged and for the proponents of option three and four  to say where they  wishe d to go with 
their proposals . 
1.41.   The representative  of Barbados  delivered the following statement:  
1.42.   The discussion that we are having now is precisely the one that would have basically blocked 
us from being able to present a text to you.  So, the guidance is definitely appreciated. I  think part 
of the reason was that on the different si des, based on the positions  that the different co-sponsors 
would have held , it was a bit difficult to have put the various elements forward . So, what you have 
outlined , in one way or another , would have come up in the consultations. However, to move from 
one position to the next and present text in that way, did give us a bit of a challenge . So, given that 
you have given us that guidance, I think that would assis t us in being able to at least bring forward 
something a little more concrete . We are definitely open to going back to consultations with the 
inclusion of India , given their proposal that they would have submitted since we would have 
concluded  our last con sultation as co-sponsors.  
1.43.   The Chairperson  hoped there would be something from the consultations by that Friday or 
the following Monday. In her view it should not be that difficult. She noted that all delegations had 
other issues to also focus on , such as fisheries and agriculture . This was an easier issue to deal with 
because there were some things delegations could  decide and some things that they would not be 
able to decide . She therefore encourage d the proponents to go back and work and come up with 
something as soon as possible  outlining the first part on the Work Programme where they seem ed 
to agree on the main elements , and the options for the second part  on the moratorium . 
1.44.   The representative  of Australia  delivered the following statement:  
1.45.   I just wanted to ask a couple of questions. Building o n what the UK said about the 
preponderance of numbers on the various resolutions , if we present the options, would there be 
attributions or a list of numbers in terms of who was on what option or how would that be 
represented?  The second comment I had, not speaking on behalf of the co-sponsors of 
WT/GC/W/909/Rev.2  but just in Australia's capacity , there are certainly a lot of commonalit ies on 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce , but I think the South African proposal for a new fund 
could benefit from some additional discussion in terms of what the gaps in existing funding 
mechanisms are . So, I personally think that some greater alignment on some of the sub -elements 
of the proposal other than the moratorium might also be needed for us , as you say, to make things 
easier for our Ministers  and have clear decision s. So that there might be some  other  things , outside 
of the moratorium , that there are differences on  and I am just worried about the complexity of trying 
to bring together what a re still quite distinct proposals in the time frame  provided . 
1.46.   The representative  of the European Union  delivered the following statement:  
1.47.   Thank you, Facilitator , for your consultations and to the proponents of the draft proposals and 
efforts to converge . This is definitely not an easy task on anyone. We share your assessment , and I 
would be happy to see the proponent -led efforts to continue in the next weeks and happy to 
contribute and suppor t this work and see if all or  some existing  drafts c ould be brought together or 
not, ultimately. It is difficult to prejudge any options or outcomes of th ese efforts now. If efforts to 
merge are successful, we indeed would be looking to see the draft that reinvigorate s the Work 
Progra mme and indeed, we share that there are a lot of common  elements in the drafts in that 
respect . We could be a bit more specific on the work that we have undertaken post -MC12 and the 
work that we would be undertaking post-MC13 if that is what Members  are in terested  in. But when 
it comes to the moratorium, indeed, whatever draft we would be working on, it needs to reflect the 
overwhelming support of Members  to see the moratorium extended.  We are  working hopefully 
towards a very brief Decision , that, as in the  past, contains two elements : the reinvigoration  of the 
Work Programme and the extension of the moratorium.  These t wo elements , in our view, 
go together.  WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.48.   The Chair person  said that  this question about the number of proponents support ing the 
extension of the moratorium had come up  during the consultations , and she had remind ed everyone 
that this house, as far as she knew , still work ed on the basis of  consen sus. She believed that all 
delegations would  brief their Ministers  on where Members stood with respect to the number of 
proponents support ing the moratorium . As the Facilitator she would report factually to the General 
Council,  and she  encourage d Members  to remember  that the ACP Group was not one country . 
1.49.   The representat ive of India delivered the following statement:  
1.50.   Just to add to the point which you mentioned, this  comment about the number of proponents 
came up in the informal consultation s as well , and in that meeting our delegation  and the delegations 
from South Afric a and Indonesia had commented that , as an example, there are 80 Members  
co-sponsoring the public stockholding proposal  across G33 , Africa n Group and A CP. If we are going 
down the path of listing the numbers,  then this should not be an  exception.  
1.51.   The Chair person  said that she did not think that this was an issue of focus. The issue of focus 
should be what delegations  agreed upon , what they could not decide upon  and what to report to 
Ministers . She was  confiden t that this group ha d moved so far in the  discussion  towards finding 
common language on the Work Programme . Merging the  four options was a question of minutes for 
those who were good with language.  She asked if delegations could agree to move forward and 
asked the proponents to  pursue the work and to allow those interested to join the proponents in 
pursuing this work and coming to a common text. 
1.52.   The representative  of China  delivered the following statement:  
1.53.   I fully agree with you, and you always have China's strong support in this regard. We would 
like to take this opportunity to join others in extend ing our appreciation for your and the proponents' 
tireless  efforts . We fully agree with  your proposal that we need to  sum up the comm on elements, 
table a  single text as early as possible  for Members ' consultation , and then take a decision . Regarding 
the moratorium, we also agree with your assessment ; we believe that there are no big differences 
between the elements in the proposal s WT/GC/W/909/R ev.2 and WT/GC/W/916 , and these two can 
be merged . And then together with the other  proposal s we need  to table it through the Ministers  to 
make a decision.  Whether  it is a beautiful article or an ugly article, we still need t o table it for final 
decision. China is ready to participate in the process and as always , you have our support.  
1.54.   The Chairperson  said that t he exercise of democracy was always a beautiful article, so whether 
there was agreement or disagreement, it needed to be put on the table for Ministers  to decide . 
Delegates were  not empowered to do that. She would therefore  simply encourage the proponents 
to meet. She reminded delegations to send their statements to the S ecretariat as soon as possible 
so that they could be  reflect ed in the Minutes of this meeting . She reminded delegations that the 
Minutes of the December  2023 session ha d been circulated in document WT/GC/WPEC/M/ 11. 
1.55.   The meeting was adjourned.  
 
 
______ _________  
 
  WT/GC/WPEC/M/12  
 
- 8 - 
 
  ANNEX I1 
 
At the request of the delegation of Korea, Republic of, the written submission below is annexed to 
the Minutes of this Dedicated Discussion on Electronic commerce meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your consistent dedication on Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce and extend a special appreciation to secretary for organizing this meeting 
every month. I would like to thank you, Switzerland and South Af rica, ACP group and India for your 
communication.  
 
Korea joined the co -sponsor of the communication WT/GC/W/909  to support the extension of both 
the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and the moratorium. Korea believes that the 
moratorium is a cornersto ne for boosting e -commerce, and the area of convergence reported by the 
Facilitator would only have meaning if they are based upon the premise of  there  being an extension 
of the moratorium. If the moratorium is not extended, many Member countries may fall into 
confusion, and the reinvigoration of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, particularly in 
the development dimension may lose its driving force. Hence, it is essential that the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce is viable only under the condit ion of the extension of the 
moratorium.  
 
E-commerce is not an issue that can be resolved through approximately one year of Dedicated 
Discussions among 16 4 Member countries; it is a complex field requiring extensive discussions and 
considerations. It is nec essary to address this issue with a long -term perspective and patience. I 'll 
stop here.  
 
__________  
 
1 Korea, Republic of , did not intervene at the meeting.