.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/19
17 April 2000
(00-1533)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of
Trade in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 28 SEPTEMBER, 6 & 13 OCTOBER 1999
Chairman: Mr. Y. Shiran (Israel)
Agenda of the Meeting  Page
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.11)...........................................................1
2. Consultations on No n-tariff Barriers..................................................................................2
3. Divergences in Classifying Information T echnology Products (G/IT/2/Add.1/Rev.1)....3
4. New Participants............................................................................................................. ......3
5. Annual Report (G/IT/W/4) ..................................................................................................4
6. Review of Product Coverage................................................................................................77. Other Business............................................................................................................... ........8
_________________
Introduction
The Chairman stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in
WTO/AIR/1174 on 17 September 1999.  He asked if there were any other matters to be raised under
"Other Business".  Hearing no requests, he stated he intended to take up Item G. "Other Business",
before Item F. "Review of Product Coverage".  Furthermore, he intended to take up the Information
Technology Symposium and date of the next meeting of the Committee under "Other Business".  The
agenda was adopted.
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.11)
1.1 The Chairman pointed out that an overview of the implementation of the  Ministerial Declaration
on Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.11. As shown in this
document, implementation seemed to be proceeding as envisioned under the Declaration.  He furthermore
noted that under item three of the document, it stated that "letters of acceptance had been received fromall participants except five".  In the meantime, the Secretariat had received the letter of acceptance from
Mauritius, and therefore this should be updated to "four".  He asked if any delegations had any
information to share or comments to make.  Hearing no requests from the floor, the Committee took note
of the Chairman's statement.G/IT/M/19
Page 2
2. Consultations on Non-tariff Barriers
2.1 The Chairman recalled that at previous meetings of the Committee, delegations expressed their
interest in pursuing work on non-tariff measures.  Furthermore, he noted that to contribute to the work in
this area, there was an Australian proposal, an Australian national experience paper, and a Secretariat
document containing a summary of the survey responses (G/IT/SPEC/Q1/25).
2.2 The delegate of Australia stated that his delegation had circulated a paper on a non-tariffs
measure work programme and was encouraged by the feedback received thus far.  Furthermore, he noted
that Australia had submitted a national experience paper and he encouraged all participants to share
information by submitting also such papers.   He hoped that a work programme would contain a balanced
package for both developed and developing countries alike.  He encouraged those countries that had not
submitted a survey response to do so, as it would contribute to the body of knowledge in this area.  Hesuggested that the Chairman should hold consultations with interested parties to see where opportunities
lied.
2.3 The delegate of Switzerland informed the Committee that Switzerland had tabled a national
experience paper concerning telecommunications equipment.  The paper described the development of
Switzerland's current regime of technical regulations relating to telecommunications equipment and
outlined the stages of development beginning with a monopoly carrier that was used to set all the
standards and conduct all the tests, then the transfer of all these powers to a specially created regulatory
body in 1992, followed by the actions taken in response to the liberalization of the telecommunications
infrastructure in Europe in 1998, and concluding with the most recent initiative with the establishment ofnew rules to allow these functions to be largely transferred to industry.  The paper further outlined the key
elements of technical regulations serving as the basis of confidence between government, carriers,
industry, and users.  The development of technical regulations for radio and telecommunications
equipment had undergone a substantial development, though in steps, with a view to transferring more of
a role to market players.  The regulators role, in this respect, had been focused on the establishment ofadequate safeguards for matters such as protection of networks and efficient radio spectrum usage.
Switzerland's experiences with the reforms and the establishment of efficient technical regulations, had
shown major benefits for users and industry, including reduction of costs, improved variety of products
and services, and enhanced competitiveness.  For the industry, administrative costs were reduced and
efficiency was improved.  For the next millennium, Switzerland would be further pushing the last and
final step to liberalization, placing the responsibility for conformity assessment for radio and terminal
equipment in the hands of manufacturers as much as possible.  The Federal Office of Communicationshad launched a corresponding project in response to the societies' recent demands for information
technology and the industries' needs for new regulatory instruments allowing them to cope more
effectively with the increasing speed of the development of technology and with the globalization of the
market.
2.4 The delegate of Norway stated that information technology has been one of the main driving
forces behind economic development and growth.  Thus it was of paramount importance that the
Committee keep up the work to ensure a liberal economic environment for trade in IT products.  The IT
Symposium held earlier in the year clearly showed that non-tariff barriers may represent a significant
market barrier for trade in IT products, as NTMs may impair binding commitments to eliminate tariffs.Thus, Norway continued to attach great importance to removing such NTMs in order to complement the
work in removing tariffs.  He welcomed the contribution of Australia on a work programme and hoped
that his delegation could submit a national experience paper in the future.
2.5 The delegate of the United States stated their support for work in this area, and showed a
willingness to participate in future consultations.  His delegation planned to submit a national experience
paper in the future.G/IT/M19
Page 3
2.6 The delegate of India thanked Australia for the initiative they had taken in this area to enable the
Committee to share experiences on non-tariff barriers.  Her delegation also thanked Switzerland for their
contribution.  Her delegation looked forward to the forthcoming contributions of the United States and
Norway and would try to prepare something as well.  Her delegation supported the proposal of Australia.
2.7 The delegate of Canada stated their interest in having the Committee continue its work on non-
tariff measures.  For example, it would be useful for the Committee to examine import licensing regimes
and to work on standards issues.
2.8 The delegate of Singapore supported the Australian initiative on a NTMs work programme and
looked forward to participating in any consultations on this matter.
2.9 The delegate of New Zealand expressed appreciation for the Australian contribution, and like
Norway, noted that the IT Symposium highlighted the concerns in this area where the Committee could
make progress.  Her delegation thanked Switzerland for its contribution and noted that it was useful to
receive national experience papers and that New Zealand would be looking into providing one as well.
Her delegation looked forward to continuing the work on this matter.
2.10 The delegate of the European Communities confirmed their continued interest in this matter and
supported the work that Australia had done.  His delegation looked forward to contributing to the process
and participating in future work..
2.11 The delegate of  Malaysia stated his interest in this matter which was an important part of the
Committee's work.  His delegation looked forward to moving the process ahead and to informal
consultations on the matter.  At this time his delegation could not promise a national experience paper as
resources were tight.
2.12 The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed  to hold informal consultations.
3. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/2/Add.1/Rev.1)
3.1 The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee, there was agreement to proceed
with work on this item.  First, the Secretariat was to update document G/IT/2/Add.1, which had been
completed and circulated as document G/IT/2/Add.1/Rev.1.  Secondly, there was agreement to hold
informal consultations for customs experts in the autumn.  These informal meetings were scheduled totake place on 4-8 October 1999.  Thus, work was proceeding on this matter.
3.2 The delegate of the United States stated their intention of having experts present for these
meetings and it was important step to go forward with this work.  This was an opportunity to share
experiences and expertise on IT classification issues.  His delegation looked forward to participating.
3.3 The delegate of the European Communities stated their appreciation for the work and would take
an active role.3.4 The delegate of Canada stated that his delegation would send an expert to these meetings.
3.5 The delegate of Hong Kong, China stated they would send an expert to these meetings.
3.6 The Committee took note of the statements made.
4. New Participants
4.1 The Chairman noted that there had been three schedules submitted to the Committee for
consideration at this meeting.  These were the schedules of Albania, Croatia, and Georgia.  He noted thatG/IT/M/19
Page 4
the Secretariat had performed the electronic verification of these schedules and there had been no
discrepancies noted.  Furthermore, he noted that in a communication to the Secretariat, the delegation of
Croatia had indicated that Croatia's commitments in its ITA schedule would be effective from the date of
Croatia's accession to the WTO.
4.2 The delegate of Croatia stated that when the Government of the Republic of Croatia indicated its
intention to become a participant to the ITA by the date of accession of the WTO, the meeting of the WP
on the accession of Croatia scheduled for 27 September 1999 was supposed to be the last one.  However,
since the work of the WP could not be completed because of the unresolved issue of audio-visual
services, Croatia was not yet in a position to establish its date of accession to the WTO.  Croatia's aim
was to join the WTO as soon as possible, the next WP was tentatively scheduled for 12 October 1999.
His delegation wished to incorporate the ITA commitments in Croatia's final schedule on goods, and thatwas the reason why the written communication said "on the date of accession".  Since that date was not
clear yet, he could only ask participants to approve the request, as Croatia's aim was to become a WTO
Member before the Seattle ministerial meeting.
4.3 The delegate of the European Communities thanked Croatia for the information provided.  He
understood that the ITA commitments by Croatia were dependent on the accession of Croatia to the
WTO.  Since ITA participation became normally effective when the country concerned could make an
unconditional commitment with respect to its ITA schedule,  his delegation could not approve the full
participation of Croatia today, but looked forward to addressing this at the next meeting of the
Committee.
4.4 The delegate of Croatia, as it appeared that Croatia was not in a position to become an ITA
participant today, proposed to change the wording to:  "after the date of accession but not later than
1 January 2000".
4.5 The delegate of the European Communities requested that this be confirmed in writing.
4.6 The delegates of the United States  and Canada  agreed with the European Communities that a
written communication should be received.
4.7 The Chairman stated that the Committee approved  Croatia's participation in the ITA subject to
the receipt of a written communication from Croatia.4.8 The Committee approved the schedules of Albania and Georgia.
5. Annual Report (G/IT/W/4)
5.1 The Chairman noted the Committee reported annually to the Council for Trade in Goods.  The
draft report for this year had been circulated in document G/IT/W/4.  He noted that this report was a
factual summary of the work undertaken in the Committee during the year and that it may need to be
updated in light of today's discussions in the Committee.
5.2 The delegate of India, referring to paragraph 9 of the report, stated that this paragraph made
reference to document G/IT/8 containing a summary of the IT symposium.  She was surprised that a
summary of the symposium had been issued as a WTO document, as she recalled that in previous
discussions it was agreed that there would be an informal checklist or a Chairman's summary.  She noted
that the IT symposium was supposed to be outside the WTO framework.  Secondly, she noted that the
paragraph on the IT symposium seemed to receive much coverage in the annual report.  Thirdly, shereserved her delegation's rights with respect to paragraph 10 and noted that the Committee had not had
discussions on this matter.G/IT/M19
Page 5
5.3 The delegate of Malaysia supported the statement of India with respect to the paragraph on the IT
symposium, as he had similar concerns.  In principal, this item should not be in the report, as he recalled
that it was agreed that the symposium would be outside the WTO framework.  He requested that
paragraph 9 be edited substantially, as it stated "the Committee held an IT symposium", which was not
the case.
5.4 The delegate of Thailand agreed with the positions of India and Malaysia.  He stated that his
delegation did not have any problem with respect to the IT symposium, as he thought it was very useful
and of benefit to many.  It was important that the symposium brought the industry problems forward, and
for that he was thankful.  However, the issue today was with the procedural aspects concerning the
mentioning of the proceedings of the symposium in a WTO document.
5.5 The delegate of the European Communities recalled the proceedings for the preparatory work for
the symposium and could agree with the statements made.  He noted the positive aspects of the
symposium, but agreed that there were sensitivities on the linkage of the symposium with the work of the
Committee.
5.6 The delegate of Korea said that he believed that the summary of the IT symposium did not reflect
the discussions that were held.  There was considerable discussion in the question and answer sessions
which were not included in the report.
5.7 The delegate of Norway recalled that there were some sensitivities with respect to the IT
symposium and its relationship with the work of the Committee.  He associated himself with the
statement of the European Communities.  With respect to the fact that the summary had an official
document number, namely G/IT/8, he recalled that several other similar symposia had documents
circulated under the official WTO document series, and this should not have any bearing on the status of
the symposium.
5.8 The delegate of Australia stated that he would support amending the first sentence of paragraph 9
to say "the Committee noted that an IT symposium was held", as what followed was purely a factual
statement.  As for the document reference number, his delegation did not have a problem.  If other
delegations did have a problem, he suggested saying "a summary of the proceedings of the IT symposium
is available from the WTO Secretariat or the WTO website".
5.9 The Chairman proposed that the first sentence of paragraph 9 be amended to read: "The
Committee noted that an IT symposium was held on 16 July 1999 with participation of the private
sector".
5.10 The delegate of India supported the first sentence as stated, and also could support the second
sentence, but suggested the deletion of everything else that followed, as the first two sentences were
sufficient.
5.11 The delegate of New Zealand stated she had no difficulties with the proposal by India, but
wanted to combine it with the second proposal by Australia, which was to have a brief reference to
further information on the proceedings being available form the WTO Secretariat or the WTO website.
5.12 The delegate of Malaysia agreed with the statement of India, but also saw merit in the Australian
and New Zealand proposals that people should know that there was information available and that they
could obtain it.  However, he mentioned that the reference to "the Secretariat" implied that thesymposium was held under the WTO, which was the link he did not want to make.
5.13 The delegate of Australia noted that there were many documents that were "available in the
WTO Secretariat", and yet were not official WTO documents.  This did not prejudice the content or theirG/IT/M/19
Page 6
status, and did not mean that they represented the views of WTO Members nor made other implications.
He noted, as an example, Australia's national experience paper.
5.14 The delegate of India, while noting the position of Australia, wanted the record to reflect that not
all WTO Members shared this same view.  She pointed out that Australia's national experience paper was
a government document which Australia had introduced in the Committee and placed with the WTO
Secretariat.  The symposium, and the documents associated with it, were private-sector persons' papers,
not necessarily reflecting the views of governments.
5.15 The delegate of New Zealand suggested that reference be made solely to the "WTO website".
5.16 The delegate of  Norway stated that he was willing to accept the previous proposal as amended
by New Zealand.  Furthermore, he asked how the situation was handled with respect to other symposia
that were held in the WTO in the past.
5.17 The delegates of  Malaysia and India  supported the amendment of New Zealand.
5.18 The proposal by New Zealand read "a summary of the proceedings of the symposium and the
presentations of all the speakers are available on the WTO website".5.19 The delegate of India recalled that "the summary of the proceedings" was not a proper document
and should therefore not be referred to at all;  she could go along with the text "the presentations of all the
speakers are listed on the WTO website".
5.20 The delegate of the Czech Republic suggested the wording "documents related to the symposium
could be found on the WTO website", which would thereby delete any reference to specific documents.
5.21 The Chairman restated the revised wording as "The Committee noted that an information
technology symposium was held on 16 July 1999 with the participation of the private sector. The purpose
of the symposium was to share information about the dynamism of information technology (IT) and
its future, to explain the role of IT in promotin g economic growth and development, and to highlight
the value of the application of IT.  Documents related to the IT symposium could be found on the
WTO website."
5.22 The delegate of India could accept the wording only on an ad referendum basis.
5.23 The delegate of Korea inquired about the wording contained in the summary.
5.24 The Chairman responded to Korea that at the moment, the Committee was discussing the annual
report.
5.25 The delegate of Malaysia noted that the delegate of Korea had a point, as the annual report made
reference to documents relating to the symposium.  Furthermore, in his opinion it should mention a
"chairman's summary" and not "documents related to the symposium".  Thus, he could not agree to thisphrase.
5.26 The delegate of the European Communities recalled that the Chairman of this Committee was
not the Chairman of the IT symposium.  The chairing of the symposium was done by the Secretariat.  He
agreed with Malaysia that there should be a text under the sole responsibility of the Secretariat or thechairman who presided over the proceedings.
5.27 The delegate of Australia suggested that the document be re-issued without a WTO reference
number and titled "summary of the Chairman"G/IT/M19
Page 7
5.28 The Chairman stated that like in the case of other symposia held on the premises of the WTO, the
summary of this symposium was circulated in the same way.
5.29 The delegate of Malaysia supported the proposal of Australia.
5.30 The delegate of Korea stated his agreement with the proposals, but noted that he thought the
summary should contain the full discussion of what took place.5.31 The Chairman stated that the Secretariat would re-issue a summary of the proceedings which
would not have a WTO document symbol, and paragraph 9 would read as follows, "A summary of the
proceedings of the symposium has been issued by the Secretariat which, along with the presentations of
all the speakers, are available on the WTO website."
5.32 The delegate of India agreed with the first part of the Chairman's statement, but proposed that the
summary be referred to as a "Chairman's summary of the symposium" and not "proceedings".
Furthermore she asked if the chairman's summary would be amended or issued as it currently existed.
5.33 The delegate of the European Communities agreed with the wording proposed by India.  With
respect to the second point raised by India, he stated there was no answer to this question as this was a
text on the Chairman's own initiative.  It was important that this document stood on its own and not have
endorsement of the Members.
5.34 The Chairman stated that paragraph 9 would be amended as suggested by India.  As regarded the
Chairman's summary, he stated that this would be under the responsibility of the chairman of the
symposium.  It was so agreed.
5.35 When the meeting was suspended on 28 September 1999, paragraph 10 of the annual report had
not been approved, as discussions had not yet taken place on the issue "review of product coverage".
Resumed meeting on 13 October 1999
5.36 The meeting was resumed to take up the outstanding issue of paragraph 10 of the annual report.
The Chairman stated that after some consultations, he sensed that not all delegations were in a position to
accept paragraph 10 as it was originally drafted.  He proposed a small amendment as follows, "The issueof the review of product coverage was placed on the agenda of the Committee's meetings during 1999
at the request of several delegations.  No discussions took place on the matter, but the Chairman noted
that delegations were continuing consultations on this matter and he encouraged delegations to
continue their efforts."  It was so agreed.  The annual report was thus approved
 by the Committee.
6. Review of Product Coverage
6.1 The Chairman stated that with respect to this agenda item, he would suspend the meeting subject
to further informal consultations on the matter.
6.2 The delegate of Norway, stated for the record, that his delegation did not see a reason for
suspending the meeting but as this was the preferred way of proceeding, his delegation would go along
with it.
6.3 On 28 September 1999, the meeting was suspended for further informal consultations.
6.4 On 6 October 1999, the meeting was resumed.  The Chairman  stated that the Committee  spent a
lot of time and effort last year trying to reach agreement on a package of products to expand the existing
product coverage.  He noted that consultations were continuing between delegations on this matter and he
encouraged delegations to continue their efforts. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.G/IT/M/19
Page 8
7. Other Business
7.1 The Chairman stated that the Information Technology Symposium held on 16 July 1999 was
successful and there was an interesting group of speakers. It was a useful exchange with the private sector
on their views and ideas concerning information technology.  At the request of some delegations, the
document originally issued by the Secretariat in G/IT/8 would be re-issued and be available, as with thepresentations of the speakers, on the WTO website.
7.2 The delegate of Malaysia stated that the Chairman should refer to "the Committee" instead of
"some delegations", and furthermore questioned whether the Chairman should have raised this matter
under "Other business".
7.3 The Chairman recalled, as a factual observation, that there was a decision of the Committee to
have the symposium;  thus, he deemed it appropriate to raise this matter under "Other business".7.4 The delegate of Australia agreed with the Chairman.
7.5 The delegate of the European Communities suggested that for this agenda item, the Chairman
just state the new text of paragraph 9 which was recently agreed upon.7.6 The delegate of India stated that this was a matter of "Other business", and therefore it was
appropriate to note the Chairman's statement with amendments.  However, with regard to the systemic
issues raised by Malaysia, her delegation agreed.
7.7 The Chairman stated that his statement was a factual summary of what took place and also
reflected what was just agreed under paragraph 9 of the previous item.  The Committee took note of the
statements made.
7.8 The Chairman proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on
23 November 1999, subject to confirmation.  It was so agreed.
__________