WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/IT/M/54 
19 December 2011 
 (11-6667) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 24 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Chairman:  Mr Zahari Md Ali (Malaysia) 
 
 
Agenda of the Meeting          Page 
 
1.  Election of Chairperson ....................................................................................................... ..... 2 
2.  Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Pr oducts (G/IT/1/Rev.45) .......................................................... 2  
3.  EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Types of Conformity Assessment 
Procedures for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.6) ........................... 2  
4.  Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ........................................................................................................ . 3 
5.  Divergences in Classifying In formation Technology Products 
(G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, G/IT/W/33 and G/IT/W/34) ................................. 3  
6.  Proposal from the European Communities Concerning the Review of the 
Information Technology Agreement (I TA) (G/IT/W/28 and JOB/IT/5).............................. 4  
7.  New Participants .............................................................................................................. ......... 8 
8.  Celebration of the 15th anniversary of the ITA ...................................................................... 8  
9.  Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2011) (G/IT/W/35) ................................................ 9  
10.  Other Busi ness ................................................................................................................ ........... 9 
(i)  Review of Product Coverage .................................................................................................... .. 9 
(ii)  Date of the next meeting ...................................................................................................... ....... 9 
 
_______________ 
 G/IT/M/54 
Page 2 
 
 
  Introduction 
  The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting which was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/3826 on 14 October 2011, with an addition at the request of the Russian Federation to make a 
statement under the item G, New Participants; and additions by the Chair to take up the "review of 
product coverage", and the "date of the next meeting" under "Other Business".  
 
1. Election of Chairperson 
1.1 The Committee elected Mr Zahari MD ALI (Malaysia) as Chairman.  This was due to the 
departure of Mr Syed Mohd Faizal Bin Syed M ohd DARDIN, who was elected Chairman of the 
Committee in May 2011.   2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.45) 
2.1 The Chairman stated that an overview of th e implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.45.  This 
document updated the Participants on issues pertaini ng to the WTO procedures for implementation.  
He pointed out that as indicated in the documen t, the completion of domestic legal procedural 
requirements for El Salvador was still pending.  He informed the Committee that the Secretariat had, 
in the recent weeks, contacted the delegation of  Morocco and he also intended to write to the 
delegation of Morocco in the coming days.  He hop ed that Morocco would accelerate the process of 
submitting its formal documentation.  He would keep the Participants informed of any new 
developments in this regard.  
2.2 The Chairman urged those Participants who had not followed the procedures for the formal 
rectification and modification of schedules, as required by the Decision of 26 March 1980 on 
Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, to make their 
submissions as soon as possible.    
 2.3 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Ty pes of Conformity Assessment Procedures 
for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.6) 
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the end of 2000, the ITA Committee approved a Work 
Programme on Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) with the objective of identifying impediments to trade in 
ITA products.  One of the outcomes of that exercise was the completion of a pilot project which led to 
the adoption of the "Guidelines for Electroma gnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic 
Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedures" on an ad referendum  basis.  Upon the 
adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat, based on the survey responses submitted by and 
notifications received from Participants, prepared a note on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity 
Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants" (G/IT/W/17).    
3.2 He said that during the proceedings of the Committee, the Participants found the information 
contained therein very useful and wished to have it completed.  As agreed at the Committee meeting 
of 11 November 2010, the Chair had again on 17 Dece mber 2010, written to those Participants that 
had not submitted a survey response or a notification and urged them once again to provide the information concerning their conformity assessment pro cedures for EMC/EMI.  As of the date of this 
meeting, among the 46 Participants, 26 had provided su ch information.  However, there were still 
20 Participants who had not yet submitted neither a survey response nor a notification regarding the 
type of assessment procedures used by their authorities for EMC/EMI.    G/IT/M/54 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3.3 He told the Committee that the Secretariat ha d contacted some of those delegations again in 
the past weeks prior to this meeting and their responses were still pending.  In his view, this 
information had greatly increased transparency of the types of conformity assessment procedures for 
EMC/EMI used by these ITA Participants which would,  in turn, facilitate international trade in this 
important sector.  He invited those Participants to comment, intervene, and provide new information 
to update the draft list in document G/IT/W/17/Rev.6. 
 
3.4 The representative of Canada  stated that his delegation still considered this project viable.  
Although it had been there for quite some time there were a number of Participants whose information 
was still outstanding.  Canada took this opportunity to encourage those Participants who had not yet 
provided their information on the EMC /EMI conformity assessment procedures to do so.  
3.5 The representative of the European Union  joined Canada and requested those Participants 
who had not provided the information to do so.  He said that while the EU could not stress the value 
of its priority enough, his delegation wanted to move  this exercise forward and develop the actual and 
important disciplines in the area of NT Bs as foreseen in the Agreement.  
 3.6 The Chairman thanked Canada and the EU for their comments.  He encouraged the remaining 
20 delegations to provide the information to the Se cretariat as soon as possible so as to enable the 
Committee to complete this work.  He also suggest ed that if any delegation had any query, they 
should contact the Secretariat for detailed informat ion, clarification or assistance regarding these 
issues.  In parallel, he asked the Secretariat to c ontinue to contact those delegations with a view to 
providing technical assistance as needed.    
3.7 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
4.1 The Chairman recalled that at the previous meetings of the Committee, several delegations 
emphasized the importance of the Committee's work on NTBs in the ITA sector and reported the 
developments in the NAMA negotiations on NTBs, where two delegations had made their proposals 
on NTBs in the electronic sector.  At the meeting of the Committee on 24 May 2011, these two 
delegations had updated a nd commented on their revised proposals on TBT related NTBs as applied 
to trade in electronics and NTBs pertaining to th e electrical safety and electromagnetic compatibility 
of electronic goods in the context of NAMA.  One of them even shared its thoughts about launching 
new areas and breaking new grounds for trade in IT products which, in the Chair's view, was very 
interesting.  He suggested the Committee revert to this issue at its next meeting as it was important that Participants be provided with an op portunity to continue the discussion on NTBs. 
 
4.2 It was so agreed.  
 5. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, G/IT/W/33 and G/IT/W/34)  
5.1 The Chairman pointed out that at the Comm ittee meeting of 24 May 2011, Participants were 
invited to consider a draft Decision proposed by th e Chair regarding the endorsement of List I - A 
items, which was entitled:  "Decision for the Classification of Certain Attachment B Products" and 
circulated as a room document at  the Committee meeting of 11 November 2010.  According to the 
draft Decision, once it is adopted, each Participant sh all reflect the agreed classifications in its WTO 
Schedule of Concessions, as appropriate, following th e procedures set forth in the 1980 Decision on 
Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25).  G/IT/M/54 
Page 4 
 
 
  Participants shall submit the rele vant documentation in connection with such modification no later 
than the date to be specified.   
 5.2 The Chairman also pointed out that the Secr etariat prepared a technical note "Classification 
Divergences:  Transposition of Items in List I - A into HS2002 and HS2007" (G/IT/W/33) dated 
16 May 2011 to help Participants , in particular those newly joined, understand the difficulties that 
they might have deriving from the process of transposition.  
 5.3 The Chairman further pointed out that recen tly, the draft Decision was circulated as document 
G/IT/W/34 and asked whether the Committee was in a position to adopt it. 
 5.4 The representative of China stated that expert s in Beijing had some technical doubt about the 
classification of some tariff lines in the list and he r delegation was still waiting for the specifics.  
Thus, at the moment, her delegation was not able to  enter into the technical discussion and suggested 
the Committee revert to this agenda item at its next meeting. 
 
5.5 The representative of El Salvador told the Co mmittee that El Salvador was still studying the 
proposed classifications for the 18 products under List I - A and despite their efforts to date, they had 
not yet been able to complete this exercise.  So  far, their capital was able to go along with many 
classifications proposed by experts for the products cont ained in List I - A.  However, there were still 
some doubts and analysis was under way on the products including item 1, 113, subheadings 702000.  
Thus, at the moment, El Salvador was not ready an d needed to continue the informal consultations 
with a view to making prompt progress.  
 
5.6 The representative of Guatemala congratulated the Chairman on his election and thanked the 
Chair and the Secretariat for their efforts in provi ding delegations with the proposed draft decisions 
and the related information on the classification of certain Attachment B products.  However, at the 
moment, Guatemala still had some concerns over the List  I - A items.  As stated in previous meetings, 
Guatemala at the moment was not in a position to accept the proposed draft Decision as the technical 
work was still under way in the capital.  Guatemala w as willing to participate in any consultations that 
the Chair might wish to hold in this regard.   
5.7 The representative of India stated that his delegation  had one specific issue about Paragraph 
one of the draft Decision in which document G/IT/W /33 was not mentioned.  He felt that it should 
also be reflected there along with documents G/IT /W/6/Rev.3 and G/IT/W30.  With regard to the 
technical issues that other delegations had raised some concerns, his delegation had not heard from his 
capital.  However, he hoped that the proposed draf t Decision could be approved in the near future. 
 
5.8 The representative of Japan supported the Chair' s efforts and stated that Japan had already 
indicated that List I - A items were acceptable.  Japan thought the Committee should adopt it as soon 
as possible. 
 
5.9 The Chairman stated that he would continue to hold informal consultations on this matter as 
appropriate, with a view to adopting the draft D ecision at a future meeti ng of the Committee.   
 5.10 The Committee took note of all the statements made.    
 
6. Proposal from the European Communities Concerning the Review of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA) (G/IT/W/28 and JOB/IT/5) 
6.1 The Chairman recalled that at the meeting on 30 October 2008 , the Committee discussed the 
proposal by the EU concerning the Review of the ITA as contained in G/IT/W/28.  He also recalled that 
at that meeting, as well as the subsequent meetings, Participants had intense exchanges of views on the  G/IT/M/54 
 Page 5 
 
 
  proposal and a number of queries were raised to the proponent seeking further information and 
clarification, including from ASEAN ITA Participants as contained in JOB (08)/116.  He further recalled 
that at the previous meetings, the Chair encouraged the proponent to continue to engage bilaterally with 
those Participants with a view to enabling the Committee to consider the initiation of informal 
consultations in this regard as soon as possible.  
 
6.2 The Chairman informed the Committee that on 11 October 2011, a communication was received 
from the EU, containing answers to questions from AS EAN ITA Participants on its proposal concerning 
the review of the ITA (G/IT/W/28).  At the request of the EU, this communication was circulated as 
document JOB/IT/5.  He invited the delegation of  the EU to introduce the document, JOB/IT/5. 
 6.3 The representative of the European Union reminded the Committee that the EU proposal was 
discussed and oral presentations of the replies were given at two previous meetings of the Committee and recently, his delegation had finally submitted them in writings.   
6.4 In introducing the document, JOB/IT/5, he stated that the EU felt the ITA was the most 
successful example to date of a sectoral agreement in WTO, both in terms of participation and trade 
coverage.  An extension of ITA in terms of participation and product coverage was for the EU a self-
standing objective.  Working on the basis of a successf ul existing agreement seemed more promising than 
reinventing the wheel in NAMA/DDA with a partly overlapping sectoral in electronics, also taking into account the current state of play in the sectoral ne gotiations generally.  As the ITA was an existing 
agreement with a special committee in charge, the EU considered at this point in time that the best course 
of action would be to conduct negotiations in the ITA Committee.  
6.5 He indicated that among 30 major exporters of ITA goods, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and South 
Africa did not participate in ITA.  In the case of Russia, participation in ITA needed to be addressed in 
the context of WTO-accession.  In the case of  the WTO Members, the EU would address ITA 
participation in bilateral meetings.  He said that th ere would be options to involve non-ITA participants:  
(i) to organise a meeting between part icipants and non-participants to discuss the benefits of participation 
in ITA; or (ii) to offer observer status to those delegations interested. 
 6.6 He said that on product coverage, the EU proposed the review of product coverage and 
negotiating the inclusion of products that presen ted specific challenges for ITA Participants. 
 6.7 In response to the question of what products did the EU regard as presenting specific challenges 
for ITA Participants, he stated that the EU proposed list of products for expansion of the coverage would 
be in the form of HS codes and their attached descript ions.  It would not be using generic descriptions of 
products.  By widening the coverage with single func tion products which were not covered by the current 
Agreement, the proposal addressed the difficulties of classification and tariff treatment, which some 
converging products faced without the need for having  a case by case approach.  Secondly, products with 
a clear IT profile that existed at the time of negotiation s but were excluded from th e initial product scope.  
Thirdly, new products that had emerged with high cont ents of IT or semiconduct ors, which were either 
non-existing or not widely available at the time the ITA was negotiated. 
 
6.8 To reply to the question of did the EU have a list of products which it would like to see included 
into the ITA product coverage and will the EU please sh are this list with the ITA Committee, he said that 
the EU would share a list of proposed products to the participants of the ITA as soon as possible.  It was 
however premature to set a date until the internal EU consultations on this list had been finished.  Also, major trading partners should show a willi ngness to start negotiations on this review. 
 
6.9 To answer to the question of did the EU inte nd to include the products identified and being 
considered in the recent dispute panel proceeding s (WT/DS375/8, WT/DS376/8, WT/DS377/6), he stated 
that the panel in WT/DS375, WT/DS376 and WT/DS377 ruled that some but not all of the products G/IT/M/54 
Page 6 
 
 
  under dispute should benefit from zero  duty treatment as a result of commitments pursuant to the ITA.  
The panel did not draw a clear line between product s that were dutiable and those that were not, but 
instead directed to a case-by case assessment.  With its proposal the EU would seek to extend zero duty treatment also to those multi-functional products that would – following a case-by-case assessment – not 
be covered by the ITA.  
 
6.10 With reference to the negotiations in NGMA, where Japan and other WTO Members proposed a 
sectoral tariff liberalisation initiative on electronics/ electrical products (JOB (08)/67), and to the question, 
were these products in this sectoral  initiative that the EU would consider for inclusion into the ITA 
product coverage, he stated that a certain amount of  overlap between the two lists could be envisaged.  
The mentioned sectoral proposal was however wider in  its cover which was already indicated in its title 
where it mentioned not only electronic but also electrical products.  
 
6.11 Further to the question, would the EU cons ider discussing with Japan and other WTO members 
in the NAMA negotiations, with the view of advanci ng its proposal, he said that the EU had in the 
NAMA negotiations discussed with Ja pan and other cosponsors of the electronics sectoral, but was of the 
opinion that the ITA review proposal was the preferred way forward in order to extend duty free coverage 
of electronics products. 
 
6.12 Relating to non-tariff barrie rs, in NGMA, he said that the EU had submitted a proposal 
(JOB(07)/42/Rev.1) relating to "standards, technica l regulations, and conformi ty assessment procedures 
related to the safety of electrical equipment and their electromagnetic compatibility (EMC)".  Separately, 
the US had also tabled a proposal of a similar theme (TN/MA/W/105/Rev.1).   
 
6.13 In response to questions:  did the EU desi re for identical or similar provisions found in its 
proposal to the NGMA to be considered by the ITA Committee; and would the EU continue to advance 
its proposal in the NGMA in that body, he stated that even though the substance of both possible 
negotiations would be comparable, the membership, product coverage and overall negotiation situation were different.  The EU was of the view that these differences justify to purs ue higher ambition with 
regard to NTBs in the ITA context than in the NAMA negotiations.  This would have consequences on 
the provisions to be discussed under the ITA umbrella as compared to the NAMA process. 
 
6.14 He further stated that whereas a number of pr ovisions would most certainly be similar, the EU 
could imagine that the new ITA NTB chapter could explore other non-tariff ba rriers that went beyond 
what was recently being discussed in the NAMA nego tiations.  For ITA product s, the rate of innovation 
was in general higher than for other electrical goods.  On the other hand, the safe ty risks associated with 
ITA products tended to be even lower than for electrical products in general.  Finally, the EU would continue to advance its proposal in the NGMA. 
 
6.15 He said that on the EU proposal to establish effective mechanisms to keep the agreement up to date, the question from ASEAN ITA Participants w as what mechanisms were the EU seeking and how 
did these mechanisms differ from th ose currently found in the ITA. He responded that the EU favoured a 
mechanism that would ensure more involvement and init iatives taken by the global IT industry.  Further 
details of such an approach could be discussed when other participants accepted the idea of a review. 
 6.16 The Chairman thanked the representative of the EU for his responses to the questions from the 
ASEAN ITA Participants.  6.17 The representative of the Philippines first c ongratulated the Chair on his election, and then, on 
behalf of ASEAN ITA Participants, thanked the EU de legate for his responses to their questions some 
time ago.  While the EU answers were being studied by the technical experts in the capitals, she wanted to highlight some of their initial observations.  With regard to the EU's answer to ASEAN's first question, 
at the moment it seemed that the EU would like to pursue this matter in the context of the ITA  G/IT/M/54 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Committee.  She said that the ASEAN ITA Participants would like to find out if and when there would be 
an agreement to get into the sectoral proposal on electronics and electrical products, and how this would 
be made compatible.    
6.18 For the EU answer to their second question, she noted that those non-ITA countries that were 
named including the Russian Federation, who wo uld be saying something under the item G, new 
participant.  However, what would happen if so me of the non-ITA countries  mentioned were not be 
convinced to join the ITA, would the EU continue to  pursuing without their part icipation in the ITA.   
Also, it would help, if the EU could indicate the ma in source of the statistics data that it had been 
provided so that ASEAN could also check on this st atistics; and whether this data was in HS2002 or 
HS2007 nomenclatures.   
6.19 For the third question, ASEAN welcomed the EU statement that any expansion would be in the 
form of HS codes and the attached descriptions.  She thought this was a very important development and 
Participants would not trace an Atta chment B type of problems that th ey faced at the moment under the 
current ITA.  The ASEAN also looked forward to receiv ing the list of products that the EU intended to 
share as part of the expansion of the ITA product coverage.   
6.20 She said that ASEAN ITA Participants also no ted the response on the pr oducts that were covered 
by the final proceedings of the DS panel.   
6.21 On the NTB reply, she took note and was aware that there were intense discussions at the 
moment concerning the proposals on the NTB so ASEAN ITA Participants would like to see some 
progress being made between the EU and the US on this matter.  
 
6.22 Lastly, on the mechanism, she said that ASEAN ITA Participants were concerned at the moment 
over who the EU really considered as a global IT industry producers as th e ASEAN IT producers had 
often sometimes been considered as insignificant in a ttending to this global IT industry concept.  She 
stated that these were the initial questions or res ponses of ASEAN ITA Participants to the EU answers, 
and they would provide some of th ese further questions in writing. 
 6.23 The representative of India stated that the specific question he had was about the table with 
statistic data.  The delegate of the Philippines had already asked questions about the HS 2002 and 
HS 2007, and the source of the data.  In addition, hi s delegation also wanted to  know what had been the 
treatment for ex-out because many of the ex-out might not figure as a national tariff lines in the 
Participants' tariffs schedule, so he would like to know how the EU was taking that into computing these 
figures.   
6.24 The representative of the United States than ked the EU for providing answers to the questions 
posed by ASEAN ITA Participants.  She stated that the US was still studying the document in the capital 
and did not have any comprehensive reaction at the moment.  Her delegation however looked forward to 
a full discussion at the next Committee meeting.  However, one immediate comment would be that it was 
not clear whether it would make sense to discuss this proposal, given that its premise – i.e. the ITA does 
not entail automatic product coverage extension due to technological advances – was rejected by the 
recent WTO panel report.  Also, it was not clear whether it was appropriate to discuss at the moment, given the outstanding questions regarding EU complia nce with the DSB recommendations and rulings.  
Furthermore, her government, in fact, was hearing troubling reports from US companies that some EU 
member States continued to charge du ties on products at issue in the case. 
 
6.25 The representative of the European Union stat ed that on the technical question of the statistic 
table, he did not have any expert s with him at the meeting but believed these were done using country 
figures with the current coverage of  the ITA using HS 2007.  He said that the EU was willing to submit 
those figures or give more details if necessary to those delegations who had so requested.  On the G/IT/M/54 
Page 8 
 
 
  question of non-participants, he said that despite pe rsuasive argument, some major IT producers still 
stayed outside.  The EU, of course, could not force any one to join the ITA but it would be evidence of 
the evolution of the ITA which was pretty clear that it had been quite a beneficial Agreement but of course all this would depend on how the negotiations would proceed.  
 
6.26 The Chairman thanked the EU and encouraged it  to continue to engage bilaterally with those 
delegations with a view to enabling the Committee to consider the initiation of informal consultations in 
this regard as soon as possible.  7. New Participants 
7.1 The Chairman invited the delegation of the Ru ssian Federation to make a statement under this 
agenda item. 
 
7.2 The representative of the Russian Federation stated that as part of his country's accession to the 
WTO, the Russian Federation had committed to provide  duty free treatment to all products covered by 
the ITA.  He said that given these strong tariff commitments and his country's intent to foster the 
information technology sector in Russia, it was the intention of the Russian Federation to formally 
join the ITA.  The Russian Federation would begi n the notification process in the coming weeks by 
sending a letter to the Chair of the ITA Committee and subsequently, submitting Russia's schedule of 
ITA concessions.    
7.3 He stated that the Russian Federation would e xpect to become full par ticipant in the ITA after 
the ITA Committee completed its verification of Russ ian ITA schedule in order to enable the Russian 
Federation to join the ITA when it became a WT O Member.  He informed the Committee that the 
Russian Federation also recently engaged with Me mbers of the Working Party on the Accession of 
Russia in verifying the market access schedule to be  annexed to the Russian Protocol of Accession, 
including elements that were relevant to the ITA. 
 
7.4 The representative of the United States welcomed Russia's commitment to join the ITA and 
looked forward to the opportunity to review Russia 's notification.  Her delegation believed Russia's 
Commitment to join the ITA was reflective of both the central role the ITA played in international trade 
and Russia's intention to fully integrate its economy with other WTO Members. 
 
7.5 The representative of Chinese Taipei stated that his delegation was very pleased to hear the 
announcement by the Russian Federation to join the ITA in the next couple of weeks.  He also said that 
his delegation had worked on it to this effect.  
 7.6 The representative of Japan welcomed Russia's commitment to join the ITA and stated that his 
delegation had also worked on it, in cluding the preparation of the docu m e nt a t i o n .   H e  s a i d t ha t  J a pa n 
looked forward to the positive outcome during the coming weeks.    
7.7 The Chairman thanked the delegation of the Russian Federation for its announcement. 
 
7.8 The Committee took note of  all statements made.  
 
8. Celebration of the 15th anniversary of the ITA 
8.1 The Chairman recalled that at the informal m eeting of 10 May 2011, on e delegation brought to 
the Committee's attention that  next year will mark the 15th anniversary of the ITA and suggested that it 
would be politically important for the Committee to agree to celebrate the 15th anniversary of the ITA by 
preparing some outreach acti vity.  In response, the Chair suggested to add this item – Celebration of the 
15th anniversary of the ITA, to the agenda of today's Committee meeting.   G/IT/M/54 
 Page 9 
 
 
  8.2 He said that given that this was perhaps the last meeting of the Committee for 2011the 
Committee should therefore at this meeting, agree to organize the Symposium and the Secretariat would 
then start the necessary preparations, including securing some necessary funds.  He also said that he would soon be holding informal consultations with the delegations for ideas, in particular, with regard to 
the timing, format, and structure of the discussions as  well as in identifying speakers from government, 
industry, organizations and academics.    
 
8.3 He suggested the Committee agree to organize a Symposium to commemorate the 15
th 
anniversary of the ITA, during the second quarter of 2012.   
 
8.4 It was so agreed. 
  
9. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2011) (G/IT/W/35) 
9.1 The Chairman introduced the draft annual report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in 
Goods.  He stated that the draft report for 2011 was circulated in G/IT/W/35 as a factual summary of the 
work undertaken in the Committee during the year, wh ich would obviously have to be updated to take 
into account the discussions in  the Committee today.  He asked whether any delegation had any 
comments on each of the paragraphs.   
 
9.2 The representative of the Unit ed States stated that it might be appropriate to reflect in 
paragraph 3, the Russian Federati on statement made under the agenda item - New Participants.    
 
9.3 The Chairman assured that the updated report would be circulated to the Participants before its 
submission to the CTG.  
 
9.4 The draft annual report was approved with th e updates in light of the discussions in the 
Committee meeting today.  
 
10. Other Business 
(i) Review of Product Coverage 
10.1 The Chairman stated that the issue of the review of "product coverage" continued to be a matter 
under consultation and encouraged delega tions to continue their efforts. 
 
(ii) Date of the next meeting 
10.2 The Chairman proposed the Committee hold its ne xt meeting in the first half of 2012 with the 
exact date to be decided in consultation with Participants.   
 10.3. It was so agreed. 
 
__________