RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/27 
15 November 2004 
 (04-4837) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
  
 
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (W PDR) held its twenty-seventh meeting on 
24 September under the chairpersonship of Mr. Davi d Cairns of the United Kingdom.  The agenda for 
the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2382.   Before adopting the agenda, the Chairperson 
observed that the delegation of Mexico had newly ci rculated a paper on technical standards, which he 
suggested that the Working Party examine as th e first item after the lunch break.  Also, the 
delegations of New Zealand and Aust ralia had circulated responses to  questions asked on their papers 
at previous meetings, which he suggested be  taken up under the respective agenda items.   Members 
agreed to adopt the agenda, as amended.  
A. DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATORY DISCIPLINES UNDER GATS  ARTICLE VI:4 
(a) Discussion of Concepts  Relating to the Development of Disciplines  
 
U.S. Paper on Transparency Disciplines  
 2. The Chairperson
 noted that, under the sub-category Discussion of Concepts Relating to the 
Development of Disciplines , the United States had circulated a Proposal for Transparency Disciplines 
in Domestic Regulation , as JOB(04)/128, dated 15 September 2004.  He invited the U.S. delegation to 
introduce the paper. 
3. The delegation of the United States  said the proposal was intended to emphasize the 
importance of building upon existing disciplines on re gulatory transparency in services in the GATS, 
WTO accessions, and recent contributions from th e EU and Japan as a means of finding "common 
ground" on transparency disciplines within the Working Party.  The U. S. had attached to the proposal 
a matrix, highlighting the growing number of services regulatory transparency disciplines that had been adopted in the GATS as well as in bilateral and regional fora the U.S. participated in.  The U.S. 
proposal advocated horizontal transparency disciplin es, applicable to all service sectors, while 
recognizing that all levels of government must reta in the ability to set, maintain and enforce high 
levels of protection for consumers, health, safety, security and the environment.   
4. The United States believed that horizontal tr ansparency disciplines in services should not 
preclude work on sector-specific transparency disciplin es, e.g. for financial services, which could be 
pursued in parallel.  The growing number of tr ansparency disciplines reflected the widespread 
recognition of their benefits to a number of different players.  SMEs were principal beneficiaries, as 
such firms often lacked the resources to otherwi se learn the procedures for developing the rules and 
regulations that affected their ability to enter eff ectively foreign markets.  Regulatory transparency 
could, for example, address the lack of oppor tunity for interested non-governmental market 
participants to meet with government officials to  discuss the impact of new or proposed regulations, 
or situations where inadequate information was not available or not readily available.  Transparency 
                                                     
 
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. S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 2  
 
rules such as prior comment and no tification could enhance government access to valuable expert 
information in developing new regula tions which could be particularly  useful for regulations relating 
to new technology.  The United States hoped to submit a specific proposal on regulatory transparency at the next services cluster.  GATS Article III and the transparency provisions of the Accountancy 
Disciplines  (S/L/64) would serve as the starting point  for the proposed new horizontal disciplines, 
which could include,  inter alia , the effectiveness of contact point s, the procedural aspects of the 
development of regulations (such as prior notifica tion and comment, application and enforcement of 
regulations, and transparency relevant to licensi ng procedures).  The U.S. welcomed Member's 
comments and suggestions.   
5. The Chairperson
 opened the floor for comments and ques tions.  Members welcomed the U.S. 
paper and, looking forward to the specific pr oposal, made the following preliminary comments: 
6. The delegation of Canada  welcomed the U.S. submission as advancing the discussion on 
regulatory transparency.  As indicated in its ea rlier negotiating proposal on regulatory transparency 
and predictability (S/CSS/W/47), Canada was committe d to exploring best practices with Members 
and determining whether existing pr ovisions could be enhanced.  Cana da's position was informed by 
the need consistently expressed by  business, especially SMEs, for tr ansparency and predictability in 
the regulatory conditions under wh ich international business was c onducted.  While some Members 
were concerned about capacity constraints in regard  to undertaking disciplines, as the U.S. paper had 
indicated there were existing regional and bilate ral arrangements involving developing countries from 
which lessons and best practices could be learned. 
7. The delegation of Chile  noted the particular importance of transparency in regulatory issues 
for services, as reflected in Chile's FTAs which sought to establish the highest standards for 
transparency.  The diversity in legal systems and th e cost implications of administering disciplines 
must also be considered.  Chile's experience show ed it was possible to make progress on transparency 
issues and to establish high standards.  On the U.S. paper, while Chile preferred horizontal disciplines, 
it recognized that certain sector-specific transparency  standards might be required.  They must be 
established with the services regulators.  It would be useful if the U.S. proposal also included mode 4 
aspects.   
8. The delegation of Japan  noted that transparency was also a very important pillar of its 
proposal.  Japan preferred to pursue work on a horizo ntal basis, but was open to further discussions on 
whether sectoral disciplines might also be needed.   
9. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  shared many of the observa tions regarding transparency 
as described in the U.S. paper.  The importance of transparency could not be over-emphasized, and 
the fact that transparency was al most a standard feature in many FTAs spoke for itself.  However, 
transparency alone might have its limitations if  not complemented by other elements.  While 
transparency might go a long way in ensuring that services suppliers were aware of the requirements 
and procedures for licensing to provide certain servi ces, that alone might not be sufficient to address 
the many problems they faced, especially SMEs.  Qu ite a number of examples in that regard were 
raised by Members in the Secretariat's compilation (JOB(02)/20/Rev.8).  As pointed out in the U.S. paper, transparency disciplines might be relevant to furthering the objective in GATS Article VI:4(a), 
which was one of the objectives of the WPDR  work programme.  No doubt, the issue of 
administrative burden and capacity, especially for developing countries with varying levels of 
development and capacity, would have  to be taken into account in developing such disciplines.   
10. The delegation of Hong Kong, China was intere sted in engaging in discussions to develop 
disciplines for transparency in domestic regulation under Article VI:4 on a horizontal basis, but was 
also open to the idea of sector-speci fic transparency disciplines.  Hori zontal disciplines were the basis 
upon which additional sectoral-specific disciplines c ould be developed as necessary.  The efficiency 
of such work needed to be ensured and duplication avoided.  Article III and the Accountancy  S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 3 
 
 
Disciplines  were indeed useful starting points for transpar ency, and that the focus of Article III was on 
transparency at the government-to-government level.  For Article VI:4 disciplines to be effective, they 
should focus on the level between regulators and service suppliers.   
11. The delegation of Hong Kong, China also noted the reference made to broad-based measures 
for transparency in domestic regulation, while rec ognizing that all levels of government must retain 
the ability to afford consumer protection.  The de legation invited the U.S. to share its views on 
whether the transparency disciplines were proposed to be applicable to  all levels of government.  The 
proposal would deal with, inter alia , prior notification and comment, application and enforcement of 
regulations, and transparency relevant to licen sing procedures.  Would there be any elements 
concerning transparency on licensing and qualifica tion requirements, qualifications procedures, and 
technical standards?  Article VI:4(a) aimed to ensure that licensing/qualification requirements and 
procedures, as well as technical standards were base d on objective and transparent criteria, such as 
competence and the ability to supply the service.  Th e delegation asked if the U.S. could share its 
thoughts on how transparency could ensure the objectiv e application of such requirements, procedures 
and standards.   
12. The delegation of Chinese Taipei  recognized fully the statement in the U.S. paper that all 
levels of government must retain the ability to ma intain and enforce high levels of protection for 
consumers, and agreed that transparency was one of  the core elements of horizontal disciplines.  The 
delegate shared Hong Kong, China's question on wh ether the transparency disciplines were to be 
applicable to all levels of government, noting the resource constraints of developing countries.  She 
also asked whether, as with Article VI:1, the tran sparency disciplines were to be applicable only 
where specific commitments had been made.  Regardi ng paragraph 5 of the U.S. paper, she noted that 
the Examples  paper (JOB(02)/20/Rev.8) also included tr ansparency-related measures which appeared 
to go beyond Article III.   
13. The delegation of the Republic of Korea  supported the development of horizontal disciplines 
on transparency.  The Working Party already ha d detailed discussions of the Japanese proposal over 
the past months, which should be reflected in future transparency discussions.  Technological 
developments had made it easier for governments to  undertake transparency measures, and the work 
should take that into account.  Regarding the items  listed in the appendix to the U.S. paper, the 
delegation wished to know the extent to which they had actually been applied.   
14. The delegation of Australia  said that the U.S. paper was very useful to facilitate the 
development of coherent disciplines on transparency .  Like other Members, Australia supported the 
development of horizontal transparency disciplines, but was also open to the development of sectoral 
disciplines as appropriate.  Building upon Article III and the Accountancy Disciplines  was a good way 
forward.  Transparency disciplines should suppor t the objective of professional regulation as being 
reasonable, objective, impartial and transparent, but  not be too onerous or bu reaucratic in terms of 
reporting requirements.   
15. The delegation of Brazil  observed that the new contributions, together with the existing 
proposals, would allow the Working Party to "chang e gears" somewhat.  Paragraph 4 of the paper 
stated that the U.S. intended to contribute to the development of horizontal disciplines, which were 
Brazil's preference.  While the U.S. paper also stat ed that sectoral work would not be excluded, Brazil 
currently did not see any substantive argument for sect oral disciplines, even in financial services.  
Regarding paragraph 5 of the U.S. paper, th e delegation said that Articles VII and XV also 
represented consensus on the need for transparency.  Tr ansparency should no t be seen as the only 
objective for the outcome of the Article VI:4 negotiations.   
16. The delegation of the European Communities  noted that some elements of the U.S. paper, 
such as those related to procedures,  had already been touched upon in earlier discussions.  The 
suggestion that Members should look to Article III and the Accountancy Disciplines  was very helpful, S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 4  
 
and the EC agreed that regulators and suppliers n eeded to be involved.  The Working Party's work 
was essentially confined to Article VI:4, and theref ore the question of the relationship to Article III 
was very relevant.  The effectiveness of contact  and enquiry points was also a useful area for 
attention;  only one enquiry had apparently been made to the EC contact point to date. 
17. The delegation of Singapore
 said that the U.S. paper was a useful resource.  Since 
transparency was an important pillar, having workab le transparency provisions was crucial.  The 
WPDR, however, should be careful that disciplines were not unnecessarily burdensome for regulators.  Article III and the Accountancy Disciplines  were indeed useful starting points for disciplines that 
should apply to all levels of government.  In re gard to the question of horizontal or sectoral 
application, there were merits in both.  Like othe r Members, Singapore feel that a number of useful 
contributions had been tabled.  At some point th e Working Party would need to start thinking about 
how to proceed, perhaps developing a consolidated text.   
18. The delegation of Switzerland
 said that the importance of transparency could not be  
overemphasized, in particular with regard to de veloping countries and SMEs.  Switzerland shared the 
view of Hong Kong, China that transparency could not be taken alone.  Rega rding paragraph 5 of the 
U.S. paper, Switzerland agreed with Brazil that tr ansparency also involved other areas, including the 
Schedules as noted in their recent paper.  There was a need to sequence disciplines, starting first with 
horizontal discussions, and then to engage in sectoral discussions as appropriate.     
19. The delegation of New Zealand , noting that New Zealand's regulatory regime was 
characterized by a high degree of transparency and easy access to information, very much welcomed 
the U.S. proposal to move towards the developmen t of transparency disciplines.  The range of 
disciplines that the U.S. had drawn together formed a good basis, and an initial horizontal approach 
seemed a correct way to proceed.  It was important  to ensure neutrality regarding the regulatory 
approaches applied by Members.   
20. The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago  welcomed any proposal that would help Members to 
make their regulations more transparent, particularly  in regard to technical standards and qualification 
requirements.  Any proposed disciplines, however, must not be more burdensome than necessary for 
governments and regulators.   
21. The delegation of Mexico  said that the development of  transparency disciplines was 
extremely important, and referred to the table in th e U.S. paper that gave an initial idea of the 
upcoming proposal.  Together with other Members, Me xico believed that transparency should not be 
an end in itself, and that horizontal disciplines w ould be the basis for determining the need for sector-
specific disciplines.  Mexico agreed with the U. S. paper on the necessity for communication between 
the private sector and regulators, particularly for SMEs, and also feel that the government-to-
government enquiry points seemed  to have had little effect.  Re garding paragraph 6, Mexico's 
proposal had addressed some of the same issues;  transparency disciplines needed to be made 
applicable to different levels of government.   
22. The delegation of Norway  attached great importance to strengthening transparency disciplines 
for domestic regulation.   
23. The delegation of the Philippines , regarding paragraph 3, said that the consensus for the 
creation of transparency disciplines appeared to  be conditioned on the parallel development of 
disciplines in other areas.  Regarding the U.S. inte rest in sectoral transparency provisions, the 
delegation also emphasized the importance of con tinuing parallel work on other elements.  On 
paragraph 6, clarification was sought on whether th e transparency provisions would pertain to areas 
such as qualification procedures and technical standard s.  There was also a n eed for transparency for 
ENTs.  Regarding the next phase of discussions, th e Philippines looked forward to more submissions 
from Members.    S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 5 
 
 
24. The delegation of Colombia  preferred to discuss horizontal disciplines.  Colombia welcomed 
transparency, and recognized its usefulness as trade facilitation.  Transparency disciplines alone were 
not enough to resolve other issues covered under Artic le VI:4.  Since high costs and limited capacity 
were important constraints.  It  would be useful to have information on the costs involved in 
implementing the transparency provisions of bilate ral and regional trade agreements.  Disciplines 
should also cover the movement of natural persons in order to address the problems raised earlier in 
Colombia's paper (S/WPDR/W/29), and Colombia hope d that the U.S. proposal would contain such 
elements.   
25. The delegation of India  also agreed that transparency was only one element, and there was 
need for parallel work on the other areas mentioned in Article VI:4.  Another issue was cost and 
burdensomeness, especially for developing countries.  India also hoped the transparency disciplines 
would refer particularly to mode 4, was planni ng a contribution on mode 4 transparency for the 
upcoming informal CTS Special Session meeting.   
26. The delegation of China , like Colombia, sought clarification from the U.S. on whether the 
proposed transparency measures were to be applicab le to the movement of natural persons and, like 
Hong Kong, China, on whether they co vered all levels of government.   
27. The delegation of South Africa  also believed that transparen cy was important, especially for 
SMEs, to be able to assess the meaningfulness of the commitments made.  South Africa also wished 
to highlight the relevance of transp arency disciplines in all areas of wo rk at the WTO.  However, they 
were not an end in themselves.  Transparency di sciplines could be resource-intensive, and therefore 
Members should be cautious about burdensome requirements being imposed upon regulators.  
Regarding paragraph 4, it would be good if the U.S.  could explain the differences and benefits of 
sectoral versus horizontal disciplines.   
28. The delegation of the United States , as a general response, emphasized that the proposal 
would be for a set of disciplines under Article VI:4, as underscored by the EC intervention.  The many 
constructive comments and questions from other dele gations would be taken into account.  The U.S. 
hoped to present the proposal at the next services cluster.   
29. The Chairperson  concluded the discussions by thanking th e United States for the paper, which 
was broadly welcomed.  Many delegations had emphasized the importance of transparency, but 
considered that it was not the only issue being addressed by the Working Party.  Members looked 
forward to the concrete proposal to be presented at  the next session.  Regarding horizontal versus 
sectoral approaches, as Hong Kong, China had noted , the work needed to be effective and not 
duplicate itself.   
Colombia Paper on Visa Procedures  
 
30. The Chairperson  turned to Colombia's paper, entitled Examples of Measures Relating to 
Administrative Procedures for Ob taining Visas or Entry Permits  and circulated as S/WPDR/W/29 
dated 7 July 2004.  He noted that, as recorded in  the Report of the Meeting, Members had made 
extensive preliminary comments at the previous WPDR meeting on 24 June, followed by responses 
from Colombia.  He then opened the floo r to delegations for further comments. 
31. The delegation of New Zealand  noted the preliminary comments made on the paper at the last 
meeting.  The views of the immigration authoriti es had subsequently been sought.  The authorities 
pointed out that Colombia's paper outlined elements  of processes that were found in most Member's 
systems for temporary entry.  They sympathized with Colombia's goal of seeking less burdensome 
alternatives, which was also New Zealand's appro ach.  While some of the processes described in 
Colombia's paper were generally applicable, ma ny would be used on a case-by-case basis only, 
according to perceived risk.  Characterizing such  measures as unnecessarily burdensome might miss S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 6  
 
their point, and New Zealand considered that, in orde r to maximize the benef its from immigration, the 
unplanned adverse effects should be minimized.  Fa ilure to verify the genuineness of applicants 
seeking entry could ultimately undermine faith in the utility of GATS commitments.  New Zealand was not seeking to dismiss consideration of the measures, but instead was trying to emphasize the need to consider very carefully such issues and th eir underlying objectives.  They thanked Colombia 
for a very important paper, and looked  forward to continued discussions.   
32. The delegation of Bolivia
 emphasized, as stated in Colombia's paper, that visa procedures 
affected trade in services, particularly the movement  of natural persons which was the mode of supply 
of particular interest to developing countries.  Th e paper added to the input of the Working Party, by 
providing transparency on methods for obtaining visas and describing some of the obstacles 
encountered.   
33. The delegation of the European Communities  recognized the concerns behind the paper, and 
noted that the EC was working continuously to im prove visa procedures.  At the same time, the EC 
needed to insure that the integrity of the proce dures was maintained.  In its understanding, measures 
related to entry procedures were not within the re mit of the Working Party, and therefore the paper 
was not appropriate to be discussed in the WPDR.  Without prejudice to the final EC position, the 
delegation viewed visa measures and procedures as in principle excluded from the GATS, by virtue of 
paragraph 4 of the Annex on the Movement of Natura l Persons.  This paragraph, and particularly the 
footnote, talked about nullification and impairment ra ther than violation.  While GATS rules were not 
irrelevant, there were two cumulativ e conditions to be met.  First, a Member must have taken specific 
commitments and, secondly, the actual application of the visa measure must have the effect of 
nullifying or impairing those specific commitments.  Whether the second condition was met was 
usually dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and was not per se  a matter of domestic regulation.   
34. The delegation of Cuba  also maintained that administrativ e procedures connected to obtaining 
visas or entry permits were one of the main obsta cles to trade, and undermined the real benefits 
accruing under the present commitments.  Mode 4 was of particular importance to developing 
countries, and Cuba attached great importance to professional services and the development of a 
knowledge-based society.  The proposal could enco urage debates on the basis of GATS provisions, 
and Cuba followed with interest the discu ssion stimulated by Colombia's paper.   
35. The delegation of Chinese Taipei , following contacts with immigration authorities, wished to 
respond to some of the questions raised in Colombia 's paper, without prejudicing future contributions.  
The scope of discussion was actually very limited, and should not extend beyond the question of 
whether certain visa procedures could nullify or impa ir the benefits accruing to a Member under the 
terms of specific commitments, as pointed out in paragraph 4 of the Annex on the Movement of Natural Persons.  Therefore, if a discipline was de veloped, it would impact the visa procedures only of 
Members that had made a specific commitment under the GATS.  Paragraph 4 and the footnote of the 
Annex made it clear that Members retained the right to regulate the entry and temporary stay of 
natural persons in their territories, provided that  the measures applied did not nullify or impair 
benefits under a specific commitment.  That very limited exception to Members’ discretion also 
seemed to open the door to some form of disciplin e for visa procedures.  However, any attempt to 
enforce the exception through the DSU was likely to ru n into the problem of a lack of clarity as to 
what constituted nullification and impairment.   
36. The delegation of Chinese Taipei
 noted that Article VI:1 re quired all measures of general 
application affecting trade in services to be administered in a reasonable, objective and impartial 
manner, and was limited to sectors where specific  services commitments had been undertaken.  To 
date, however, there was no definition of a "measure of general application".  Categorization of visa 
procedures as domestic regulation under Article VI :4 would enable the deve lopment of disciplines, 
much like the draft disciplines developed for accountan cy.  Indeed, the questions  asked in Colombia's 
communication seemed to focus on establishing a li nk between visa procedures and Article VI:4.   S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 7 
 
 
Such a link was not as readily available as Colomb ia seemed to suggest, but might be established 
under limited circumstances.  If Members were oppo sed to such a link, commitments could be 
inscribed in schedules under Article XVIII.  Rega rding Article XVI, the most relevant provision 
seemed to be paragraph 2(d), i.e. limitations on th e total number of natural persons employed in a 
particular sector or by a service supplier.  One argum ent might be that, as a prerequisite to entry into 
the market, visa procedures had a major impact on the supply of services and could be a limitation on 
the number of natural persons employed.  Therefore,  unless otherwise specified in the schedule, and if 
a specific commitment had been made, visa procedur es could be the basis for a violation of this 
commitment.  However, Article XVI did not seem to contain a mandate for the development of 
disciplines on visa procedures.   
37. Article III could not address Colombia’s concerns  on the transparency of visa procedures 
because it concerned only the publication of laws a nd the establishment of enquiry points.  Chinese 
Taipei's analysis of the relevance of GATS attempte d to cover most of the questions raised, although 
it followed more the structure of the GATS than the order of the questions in Colombia's paper.  
Given that visa application and renewal was something of a grey area in terms of the GATS, and 
touched upon other potentially very sensitive areas su ch as national security and the right to regulate 
entry of natural persons, the comments were conf ined to the purpose of facilitating discussion among 
Members on some of the very genuine issues relating specifically to trade in services. 
38. The delegation of Australia  associated itself with the comme nts made by New Zealand.  
Australia maintained a very open and transparent visa regime, and understood the importance of the 
issue for Colombia.  The paper raised many inte resting and thought-provoking issues and was a good 
basis for discussion.  However, Au stralia was not convinced that vi sa administrative procedures fell 
under Article VI:4.  Visa and entry permits provided a supplier the right to enter the country, while it 
was the license that provided the right to supply the service.   
39. The delegation of Chile  emphasized the importance Colombia's  paper.  It addressed a number 
of situations and elements, which were a serious impa irment to the liberalization of trade in services.  
That view was reflected in Chile's negotiating experience and bilateral trade agreements, which 
typically regulated or established administrative fac ilities for  ensuring the entry of services suppliers.  
Such rules, including measures related to transpar ency, were aimed at increasing the effectiveness and 
efficiency of liberalization.  Chile was prepared to have a more detailed discussion of those rules, 
which it believed could be useful for the Working Pa rty.  The questions in Colombia's paper were 
very relevant as it was not clear what was the preci se location of the subject in the context of the 
services negotiations.  The discussion could very possibly go beyond the confines of the Working 
Party.  Chile hoped that the treatment of the situatio ns described in Colombia's paper would remain in 
the centre of delegations' interest.   
40. The delegation of Canada  reiterated that the transparency pr ovisions of Article III could help 
to clarify administrative procedures and requirements related to visa issuance.  Greater clarity was 
also important of mode 4 commitments.   
41. The delegation of China  shared the concerns expressed by Colombia in its paper concerning 
visa requirements and procedures, which had an essential bearing on the ability of services providers 
to deliver their services.  Members should distingu ish between two concepts, i.e. the right to impose 
visa requirements, and the criteria and procedures  related to visa issuance.  Members had never 
questioned the right to impose visa requirements, and therefore it was not relevant to the discussions.  
What was being discussed were the criteria and pr ocedures related to the issuance of a visa, which 
China believed were relevant to the discussions unde r Article VI:4.  In practice, visa criteria and 
procedures were tantamount to licensing criteria a nd procedures, giving an example related to the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).  Focusing on such criteria and procedures could lead to more constructive discussions.  Like Colombia, China hoped that Members could develop equally 
effective, but less burdensome procedures. S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 8  
 
42. The delegation of Japan
 expressed understanding for Colombia 's interests and concerns.  In 
discussing visas and other border measures, it was neces sary to take into account that these were not 
the entirety of measures falling under mode 4.  Me mbers needed to distinguish between measures 
related to the entrance of a service provider, and those applying after entry.  It might be easier to first think about the measures under mode 4 that affected a service supplier after the entry into a country, 
such as licensing procedures.  The delegation stated that entry measures had a special status under the 
GATS as recognized under the Annex, especially in paragraph 4.  In discussing the mandate of the 
Working Party, Members should focus on Article VI:4 .  The special status of  border measures needed 
to be taken into account.  Japan had doubts abou t whether visas fell under the categories addressed 
under Article VI:4.  Although open to discussions on mode 4, with respect to the mandate of the 
Working Party, Japan was not fu lly convinced that visas and perh aps other border measures were 
relevant under Article VI:4.   
43. The delegation of the United States
 shared some of the concerns raised regarding the scope of 
Colombia's proposal.  There were questions not only with regard to the remit of the Working Party, 
but of the GATS itself.  These were also echoed in pa rt Australia's comments at the previous meeting.  
Colombia's paper raised some of the questions, in particular in paragraphs 13, 14 and 18, and 
recognized the sensitivities.  In that light, the U.S.  hoped to continue discussions with Colombia, and 
looked forward to bilateral exchanges.  The Workin g Party should organize itself in a manner so as to 
refine what aspects could be handl ed under its mandate.  The U.S. delegation had taken note of the 
comments made regarding transparency, and wished  to return to them at a later time.   
44. The delegation of the Philippines  wished to touch upon possible responses to some of the 
questions raised.  Regarding Article VI:1, "measu res affecting trade in services" had a very broad 
scope, and therefore probably covered the admini strative procedures under discussion.  Regarding 
Article VI:4, the delegation noted that paragraph 9 of Colombia's paper indicated that immigration 
authorities were examining the qualifications of po tential suppliers.  In such situations, the visa 
application procedures had the nature of qualificati on procedures, and began to fall under the ambit of 
Article VI:4 disciplines.   
45. Regarding comments concerning the Annex, the delegation noted the two specific 
requirements in paragraph 4.  In reading it carefully, it appeared that if there was discretion not based on objective criteria in the application of visa pro cedures, these became the subject of the work under 
Article VI:4, i.e. the development of disciplines to  ensure that such administrative procedures were 
based on transparent and objective criteria.  The f ootnote to paragraph 4 was an exemption from the 
full application of MFN, and not an indication that visa procedures and their application were outside 
the ambit of the GATS.     
46. The delegation of South Africa
 wished to associate itself with  the comments made by China 
and the Philippines.  Colombia's paper did not ques tion the right of Members to regulate.  Members, 
however, must make the distinction between immi gration and the temporary movement of services 
providers.  Commitments could be undermined by burdensome administrative procedures, which fell 
under the ambit of Article VI:4.   
47. The delegation of Brazil  did not agree with the EC that visa applications were excluded from 
the Article VI:4 mandate.  Colombia's paper reflec ted Brazil's concerns, and filled the main lacunae 
perceived in Japan's proposal.  The paper should be retained on the agenda for the next meeting to 
allow for further comments.   
48. The delegation of India  associated itself with the comments made by the Philippines, China, 
South Africa and Brazil.  There was a distinction between the rights of a Member, and the way those 
rights were being applied.       S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 9 
 
 
49. The delegation of Colombia  said the debate had shown that the issue was unclear, and that 
Members needed to continue discussions.  The pape r's goal was to generate debate.  Colombia hoped 
to respond in detail at the next meeting to all the points made.  Colombia did not question the right to 
require visas;  what was open to debate were th e administrative measures of the procedures, which 
could become technical barriers to trade when th ey were more burdensome than necessary.  There 
was no consensus on whether visa administrative me asures were covered under Article VI:4.  China 
had given an interesting example, and the Philippin es had referred to elements with which Colombia 
would be in agreement and which needed further consideration.   
50. It would be interesting to analyze what was meant by the substantive requirements that a 
services supplier had to fulfil in order to obtain a permit or license, as well as the administrative 
requirements and procedures that must be followed.   Such questions were relevant in order to 
determine whether visa procedures came under Ar ticle VI:4.  Japan had stated that visas per se  were 
measures that affected the entry of persons, and noted that licenses were permits granted after entry.  Colombia wondered whether a work permit was a bo rder procedure before entry or whether it was 
granted after entry.  More detailed analysis w as required of whether visa procedures were covered 
under Article VI:4, and perhaps the definitions of " license" and other relevant terms needed to be 
examined.   
51. The delegation of Japan
 said that measures related to mode  4 were not only border measures, 
but included measures such as non-discriminatory li censing requirements and procedures that could 
be subject to Article VI:4 disciplines.  Border meas ures did affect trade in services, but perhaps had a 
special status under the GATS.  Whether work perm its should be classified as border measures or as 
licensing procedures might differ between Members.  Japan felt that border measures were not only 
measures related to mode 4. 
52. The delegation of the United States  looked forward to addressing some of the points raised by 
Colombia.  In the course of the discussions, the U. S. hoped that Members did not try to give "lofty 
interpretations" to simple words within texts.  It  was a matter of concern that the concept or the 
identity of a visa was being construed as a license, or  as a visa issued in the context of the ATC which 
included provisions covering visa arrangements not f ound in the GATS.  The U.S. did not wish to 
enter into interpretations across WTO agreemen ts or inserting meanings into words in ways  that were 
not contemplated or imagined by negotiators.  The delegation was interested in determining  what 
were the problems, and what were the best wa ys to address them, and how to discuss them if 
Members had concerns regarding th e interpretation of the WPDR mandate.  What was compelling for 
the U.S. was that Colombia had identified a number  of problems, and had also raised a number of 
questions which were of interest to the U.S. 
53. The delegation of China  clarified that it had no intention to  provide a "lofty interpretation" of 
Article VI:4, but had simply given an example from another sector which was somewhat similar.  The delegation noted that while some restraining Memb ers under the ATC used visa requirements, others 
used export licensing requirements.   
54. The delegation of the Philippines
 said that, if it had ventured in to a legal interpretation, this 
was solely intended to indicate why Co lombia's paper and the issues it raised  were validly within the 
ambit of Article VI:4. 
55. The Chairperson  concluded by inviting delegations to take note of the statements made, and 
proposed to revert to the paper at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
Hong Kong, China Paper on National Treatment  
 
56. The Chairperson  noted that the next item on the agenda was the paper from Hong Kong, 
China, Relationship of Regulatory Disciplines with National Treatment , circulated as JOB (04)/24 S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 10  
 
dated 31 March 2004.  At the last meeting, as recorded in the Minutes, Members had made a significant number of further questions and remark s.  He invited Hong Kong, China to make any 
additional comments before he opened the floor.   
57. The delegation of Hong Kong, China
 thanked delegations for thei r earlier comments and the 
suggestion to come up with specific concrete exam ples to illustrate the issues raised.  The example 
cited by the U.S. at the last meeting (paragraph 56 of the Report), was a pertinent one, namely foreign 
equity limits imposed by means of an application review process.  As the U.S. had pointed out, the 
equity limits would fall under Articles XVI and XVII,  and the procedural aspects under Article VI.  
Another example would be examination requirement s for foreign service suppliers, which could be 
common in professional services.  The measure was apparently subject to scheduling under Article 
XVII as a discriminatory measure, but the procedur al aspects or administration of the examination 
could still be the subject of Article VI:4 disciplines.   
58. The delegation of Hong Kong, China also drew attention to its earlier submission concerning 
examples of regulatory barriers, circulated as JOB(02) /(50).  The paper raised a number of scenarios, 
where the delineation between the scope of applic ation of Articles XVI/XVII on the one hand, and 
Article VI:4 disciplines on the other hand, could merit further clarification.  Paragraph 7(b) raised a 
case similar to the two just mentioned, and ask ed questions concerning the applicability of 
Article VI:4 disciplines.  Turning to the need fo r an explicit national treatment (NT) element, as 
advocated in paragraph 9 of the current pape r, Hong Kong, China's delegation referred to 
paragraph 7(a) of JOB(02)/(50).  In a case where a licensing requirement of five years residency was imposed on all service providers, and had not b een scheduled under Article XVII, presumably the 
requirement would be non-discriminatory in the view  of the scheduling Member.  If that was the case, 
the Member should have the obligation to treat fo reign services and foreign service suppliers no less 
favourably than their own services and service suppliers  in respect of that requirement.  This was 
without prejudice to which GATS article the measur e might actually fall under.  It was a logical 
deduction that, by the fact that the Member had cho sen not to schedule that requirement, the Member 
would have the obligation to accord NT. 
59. Another possible example could be business registration requirements imposed as a kind of 
licensing requirement.  Again, if the measure was not  scheduled as an NT limitation, then the Member 
would have the obligation to ensure that the regist ration requirement was app lied in an NT-compliant 
manner.  An explicit reference to the obligation NT  obligation might merit consideration, if only for 
the sake that the disciplines to be developed under Artic le VI:4 were targeted at regulatory authorities, 
and a reminder of the need to accord NT would pe rhaps be helpful.  This could be included not 
necessarily as an explicit element of disciplines, but  in the preambular language as had been alluded 
to by Chinese Taipei at the previous meeting.  Th e objective should be to put the relationship between 
Article XVII and the Article VI:4 disciplines beyond  doubt so as to avoid any possible arguments as 
to their respective scope and application.  The de legation emphasized that it was open for suggestions 
from Members.   
60. The delegation of Australia
, making some initial comments, said it still remained to be 
convinced of the need to delineate between Artic le VI:4 measures and those subject to Articles 
XVI/XVII disciplines.  Rather than focusing on wh at disciplines might be necessary in the area of 
domestic regulation, it would be mo re appropriate to first examine whether identified barriers were 
addressed by existing GATS provisions, including Article VI and Article XVII.  Australia also had 
some concerns about the general thrust of the pa per, as well as some of the conclusions set out in 
paragraphs 8, 9 and 10.  As mentioned at the last  meeting, it was important to keep in mind that 
national treatment was an obligation in line with  scheduled limitations, while domestic regulation, 
with some qualifications, was a Member's right. 
61. The delegation of Japan  asked for clarification on paragra ph 9 of the paper, regarding the 
phrase "... except to the extent of any elements whic h make them inconsistent  with Article XVII that  S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 11 
 
 
have been scheduled in that Member's schedule of specific commitments".  Was this intended to 
indicate that all unscheduled measures in commi tted sectors, regardless of whether they were 
Article VI measures or not, were subject to Article XVII? 
62. The delegation of the Philippines  said that the document was still being examined, and 
expressed interest in a number of the points raised.  To what extent it would be appropriate to reflect 
the principles contained in the paper in any draft disci plines?  It was important that the issue be kept 
on the agenda for future discussion.   
63. The delegation of Mexico  noted that the paper from Hong Kong, China contained a number 
of elements, especially those regarding non-discrimina tion, that were similar with points raised in a 
paper that Mexico would be presenting on technical st andards.  It was necessary to continue these 
discussions. 
64. The delegation of the United States  appreciated Hong Kong, China's reference to the example 
cited at the previous meeting.  It would have been interesting to have some fresh examples to be able 
to explore to what extent problems existed in that ar ea.  The U.S. concurred with Australia that, rather 
than focusing on what disciplines might be necessary in the area of domestic regulation, it would be 
more appropriate to first examine whether iden tified barriers were addressed by existing GATS 
provisions, including Article VI and Article XVII.     
65. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  thanked delegations for their comments, which 
illustrated that the issue perhap s needed further clarification to ensure a common understanding 
among Members.  As Australia had indicated, it was ra ther futile to attempt to categorize measures.  
Regarding examples, Hong Kong, China had quoted the U.S. example and provided a new case and 
some "recycled" examples.  Their point was to illustrate that, even in  circumstances where 
discriminatory requirements were scheduled under Article XVII, there were still administrative and 
procedural aspects of those discriminatory requireme nts that could be the subject of Article VI:4 
disciplines.  If there still were divergent views regard ing the scope of application of Article VI:4 and 
Article XVII, then perhaps the Work ing Party needed to look deeper into the foundations of its work, 
i.e. to ask where the application of Article XVII disciplines ended and where Article VI:4 disciplines 
applied.     
66. The Chairperson  concluded the discussions by proposing that Members take note of the 
comments made, and revert to the paper at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
Mexico Paper on Technical Standards  
 
67. The Chairperson  noted that, as he mentioned before adopting the agenda, the delegation of 
Mexico had recently circulated a paper on tec hnical standards, as document S/WPDR/W/30 dated 
24 September 2004.  He invited Mexico to introduce the paper. 
68. The delegation of Mexico,  after pointing out two errors in the French and Spanish versions, 
said the issue was very important for Mexico.  The goal was to encourage debate within the WPDR, 
as well as to share Mexico's experience regarding di sciplines for technical standards and regulations 
in services.  The paper was divided into four parts, including an in troduction and a background 
section.  Part III of the paper presented Mexico's legal framework, which did not make a distinction 
between goods and services for technical standards and regulations.  The seven basic disciplines to be 
observed in the framework, as listed in paragraph 11, were:  Representativeness;  Consensus;  
Transparency;   Non-discrimination;  Rati onality;  Harmonization;  and Review.   
69. Regarding transparency, observations and co mments could be presented by any interested 
party.  Also, interested parties were fully info rmed of the content of technical standards and 
regulations, from the earliest drafts to the final document.  Under the Non-discrimination rules, no S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 12  
 
distinction for technical standards and regulations  was made between the treatment of domestic and 
foreign goods or services.   With respect to rationa lity, the delegation stated that technical standards 
and regulations must not be more restrictive th an necessary for the attainment of a legitimate 
objective;  in addition, a regulatory impact statem ent was required for every technical regulation, but 
not for technical standards which were voluntary.  Harmonization required that technical standards 
and regulations as a rule be based on international standards, while the review disciplines included a 
five-year review provision to accommodate constantly changing circumstances.  In Part IV of the paper, Mexico expressed its conviction that discip lines on technical standards and regulations were 
required.  Paragraph 15 listed the elements that Mexico believed should be discussed in the Working 
Party in regard to such disciplines, including the de finition of technical standards and regulations;  the 
concept of unnecessary barriers to trade;  the co ncept of not more burdensome than necessary to 
ensure the quality of the service;  special and di fferential treatment;  and the definition and use of 
international standards.   
70. The Chairperson
 thanked Mexico for the paper, a nd opened the floor for comments and 
questions. 
71. The delegation of Canada  stated that a key point of Mexico's paper was to remind Members 
that many of their standards agencies also dealt with standards related to services trade.  In fact, there 
was very little distinction made in many countries between the development of standards for goods 
trade and those for services trade.  In Mexico, it appeared that the same transparent consultative 
processes took place for the development of both goods  standards and services standards.  Members 
were therefore reminded to examine the practices of  their own domestic standards-setting bodies with 
regard to services.    
72. The delegation of Chile  pointed out that the existence of a single system applying to technical 
standards and regulations, coveri ng both goods and services, was extremely useful, and that many of 
the principles contained in the paper were of great value for national regulation.  Mexico's paper was 
very relevant for the WPDR and "completed the pi cture" of contributions from Members.  The WPDR 
might now be able to begin to think about the possibilities of a consolidated document.   
73. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  said that the paper was very comprehensive and 
thoughtful, and noted that technical standards we re the least-discussed asp ect of the work under 
Article VI:4.  The basic principles in paragraph 11 of the paper provided a good model for basing the 
technical standards regulatory framework on "guidi ng principles", and were of relevance to the 
consideration of disciplines in the WPDR.  Hong Kong,  China shared the view that the principle of 
non-discrimination was a key element for disciplines;  rationality, transparency and other key 
elements must be complements in order to achie ve the objectives under Article VI:4.  The delegation 
generally associated itself with paragraph 15 of Mexi co's paper, stating that for sub-items (b) and (c) 
further discussion was necessary on the basis of concre te examples.  In regard to advancing to the 
next stage, and the question of consolidation, H ong Kong, China looked forward to further progress.  
Delegations should come forward w ith additional concrete proposals of elements for Article VI:4 
disciplines.   
74. The delegation of Colombia  said it looked favourably on Mexico's contribution, and 
highlighted paragraph 14 of the paper regarding th e vital need for disciplines on technical standards 
and regulations that ensured compliance with the obj ectives of Article VI:4.  Colombia was also very 
interested in the elements listed in paragraph 15, and hoped those elements would contribute to a 
different organization of work in the future.   
75. The delegation of Egypt  stated that, regarding paragraph 15(e) of the paper on harmonization 
with international standards and the linkage to Artic le VI:4 objectives, an important aspect to be taken 
into consideration was the level of participation of developing countries in formulating (and thereby  S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 13 
 
 
being able to comply with) international standards.  The reference in 15(d) to special and differential 
treatment was welcome, although it was not sure if it would be sufficient. 
76. The delegation of Thailand  stated that transparency was a flexible policy tool, with a broad 
scope, and could be approached from different angles depending on the objectives that individual 
governments sought to achieve.  Cases in point were increases in legal certainty or the predictability 
and impartiality of administrative decision-making.  Mexico's paper contained many other interesting 
elements that could be further discu ssed, especially in paragraph 15.   
77. The delegation of Senegal , regarding paragraph 10, asked if Mexico's technical standards 
were compulsory, and what the process was for di stinguishing between technical regulations and 
technical standards.  Paragraph 11 on the principles to be observed when creating standards was very 
interesting;  these could also be used by the private sector on a voluntary basis.  The delegation 
enquired about Mexico's policy with regard to any such initiatives by the private sector. 
78. The delegation of India  stated that the paper helped to fill part of the vacuum in terms of the 
work on Article VI:4 and drew attention to part (e ) of paragraph 15.  The point was raised how the 
relative lack of international standards in services affected the work under Article VI:4. 
79. The delegation of Chinese Taipei  thanked Mexico for sharin g its legal framework for 
technical standards and regulations for services.  Regarding paragraph 14, the measures mentioned in 
the Examples  paper related to technical standards, incl uding differing technical standards at the sub-
federal level.  Therefore, the recommendations in paragraph 15 of Mexico's pa per, in particular sub-
items (b) and (c), were quite useful in regard to  discussions under Article VI:4.  Chinese Taipei's 
delegation, however, did have some small reservations  about the definition of international standards;  
in goods there were also some problems under the TB T in defining how international standards would 
be applied. 
80. The delegation of the United States  also thanked Mexico for sharing its experience in 
developing technical standards.  The informati on on national procedures provided a rich opportunity 
for raising practical questions.   
81. The delegation of Singapore  agreed that Mexico's paper filled a gap in the work under 
Article VI:4, and that paragraph 15 highlighted many necessary issues for Members to consider.  The 
TBT Agreement could be useful for the work under Ar ticle VI:4.  Regarding 15(a), the Secretariat had 
provided a working definition of technical standards (as noted in the Examples paper). 
82. The delegation of Mexico  expressed thanks and appreciation for Members' comments.  It 
would be useful to continue the discussion at futu re meetings.  Regarding Senegal's questions, any 
government agency which wished to draw up a tech nical regulation on goods or services needed to 
comply with all disciplines listed in the paper.  T echnical standards were voluntary and did not require 
a Regulatory Impact Statement.  Their purpose was very different from techni cal regulations.  While 
standards sought to regulate the quality of a good or  service, technical regulations were aimed at 
protecting legitimate objectives, such as human or an imal health or the environment.  The voluntary 
nature of technical standards reflected the view that quality was something the consumer should be 
free to choose.   
83. The Chairperson  thanked Mexico for the paper and Members for their initial comments, and 
suggested that Members take note of the statements ma de and revert to the pape r at the next meeting.  
It was so agreed . 
 
 S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 14  
 
Examples Paper
 
 
84. The Chairperson  noted that the informal Secretariat paper Examples of Measures to be 
Addressed by Disciplines under GATS Article VI:4  had been updated to included the measures in 
Colombia's paper.  The current version was JOB( 02)/20/ Rev.8, dated 16 September 2004.  At the 
previous WPDR meeting, Canada had indicated  the wish to offer further comments on the Examples  
paper in informal mode.  He thus suggested that  the Working Party switch to informal mode, and 
asked Canada to present its comments. 
85. Returning to formal mode, the Chairperson  opened the floor for further comments by 
Members. 
86. The delegation of Brazil  thanked the Secretariat for the revised document, and noted that 
questions regarding domestic regula tion were specifically relevant when scheduling commitments.  In 
preparing an offer, Members might be confronted wi th questions regarding the overlapping nature of 
measures that fell under the scope of Article VI:4 with those that fell under Articles XVI and XIV.  A 
clear interpretation of Article VI:4 was especially necessary in light of the outcome of the dispute 
settlement in telecoms, which raised  serious questions about the interp retation of Article VI:4 and the 
scheduling of commitments.  Brazil planned to a ddress that issue at the next meeting and provide 
some cases for analysis.    
87. The delegation of the United States  found Canada's intervention extremely useful and looked 
forward to hearing more at the next services cluster.  
88. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  indicated its interest in returning to the Examples  paper.  
Since the paper was quite large, Members might be able to find a way of presenting the information in 
a more structured and systematic manner, perhaps in a matrix-type format, to indicate under which 
Articles they believed measures were covered.  Th e delegation also called attention to the four 
questions Members had agreed to ask when exam ining the measures (as noted in the summary of 
discussions in Annex III of the Examples paper). 
89. The Chairperson  concluded by asking Members to take note of the formal statements made, 
and to revert to the subject at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . 
(b) Development of Disciplines for Professional Services 
 
Australia Paper on Professional Recognition  
 
90. The Chairperson  noted that, at the last meeting, th e delegation of Australia had presented a 
paper, entitled Professional Recognition in Australia  and circulated as S/WPDR/W/28, dated 
22 June 2004.  It was followed by preliminar y comments and questions by Members, and some 
responses from Australia.  Australia had subseque ntly provided written responses, circulated as 
JOB(04)/137, dated 24 September 2004, to the questions raised at the previous meeting.   The 
Chairperson invited the delegation of Australia to introduce the new paper. 
91. The delegation of Australia  thanked Members for their initial comments and questions.  
Australia had responded to several of the ques tions on its national experience with professional 
recognition at the meeting, and was responding to th e other questions in written form at the current 
meeting.  Any further questions would be welc ome and might be responded to bilaterally.   
92. The delegation of Mexico  thanked Australia for its responses to Mexico's question at the 
previous meeting, and said they were extremely complete.    S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 15 
 
 
93. The Chairperson  concluded by noting Australia's offer to  answer further questions in writing, 
and suggested that Members take note of the statements made.  It was so agreed . 
India Paper on Recognition Issues  
 
94. The Chairperson  moved to India's informal paper on Recognition Issues , circulated as 
JOB(03)/192 dated 29 September, 2003.  He noted that , at the June meeting, the delegation of India 
had suggested various approaches for addressing the recognition issue.  One suggestion was to link 
the examination of multilateral guidelines on MRAs to  the ongoing examination of the applicability of 
the Accountancy Disciplines  to other professions, drawing upon the existing MRA Guidelines  for 
accountancy (S/L/38), both in regard to the dom estic consultations and the consultations with 
international professional organizati ons.  Another point raised by I ndia concerned examining the most 
important elements in terms of the adequacy of procedures to verify the competency of foreign 
professionals under Article VI:6.  He invited India to  make any initial comments before he opened the 
floor for further discussion. 
95. The delegation of India  recollected that, at the previous meeting, it had expressed a preference 
for more structured discussions on specific elemen ts that the Working Party might pursue.  The 
inclusion of MRAs into the existing consultations could help to avoid duplication.  The second issue 
explicitly involved professional services, but had im plications for other sectors as well.  India had 
suggested examining the possibility of e xpanding upon the existing text of the Accountancy 
Disciplines  with respect to determining the adequacy of procedures to verify competency.  India 
planned to come back with more specific s uggestions on those items in the future.   
96. The Chairperson  suggested that Members take note of India's statement and intention to 
submit further material at a future meeting, and that  the item would be put back on the agenda at that 
time.  It was so agreed . 
New Zealand Paper on GATS Article VI:6  
 
97. The Chairperson  noted that the next topic under th e agenda sub-item was New Zealand's 
informal paper, circulated as JOB(03)/219 dated 3 December 2003, on the implementation of its 
GATS Article VI:6 obligations in the engineering services sector.  A large number of questions had been raised, and the item had been retained on th e agenda to permit New Zealand to present written 
responses, circulated as JOB(04)/136, dated 24 Se ptember 2004.  He asked New Zealand to present 
the new paper. 
98. The delegation of New Zealand
 thanked the delegations that  had earlier posed questions.  
Since the paper was rather self-explanatory, the delegation would be happy to address any further 
questions bilaterally.     
99. The delegation of Hong Kong, China  thanked New Zealand for its clear replies.  They 
clarified that the IPENZ was a non-governmental i ndustry body, and had dele gated authority only in 
certain aspects, specifically as the registration author ity.  At the same time, insofar as MRAs were 
concerned, IPENZ was participating in its capaci ty as an industry body.  New Zealand had also 
clearly elaborated on what self-regulation meant in its  national context.  Similar circumstances would 
apply to many other economies where professions we re by and large self-regulating.  Perhaps the 
Working Party should bear that in mind when it considered the issue of MRA guidelines or other 
work related to recognition.  It was useful for Members to continue to share their experience in 
respect of how Article VI:6 was being implemented.   
100. The Chairperson  concluded by thanking the delegati on of New Zealand for its responses and 
the delegation of Hong Kong, China for its comments.  He noted that the Working Party welcomed S/WPDR/M/27 
Page 16  
 
New Zealand's work, and wondered if other delega tions had experiences with the implementation of 
Article VI:6 that they wished to share with Members.    
Other Issues
 
 
101. Regarding the Secretariat paper, Results of Secretariat Consul tations with International 
Professional Services Organizations , the Chairperson  noted that an updated compilation of the 
comments received to date had been circulated as JOB(03)/126/Rev.3, dated 16  September 2004.  He 
asked the Secretariat to present the revised paper. 
102. A representative of the Secretariat  noted the main changes.  These were on page 4 of the 
document, where the International Union of Lawyer s as an initial response noted they had adopted a 
comprehensive resolution on Standards for Lawyers Establishing a Legal Practice outside their Home 
Country ;  on page 5, which presented a somewhat lengt hy response from the International Actuarial 
Association;  and, on page 11, where the Intern ational Council of Nurses had replaced preliminary 
comments with final responses.  The Secretariat w as continuing to follow up on the professional 
services organizations that had not yet responded. 
103. The Chairperson  then opened the floor for comments by Members, and asked for updates on 
the outcome of domestic consultations.  No furt her comments were received.  The Chairperson 
concluded the agenda item by inviting Members to ta ke note of the Secretariat's statement and revised 
paper.  Members  accepted the Chairperson's suggestion. 
B. DATE OF NEXT MEETING  
104. The Chairperson  noted the usual practice of holding WPDR meetings in parallel with the 
other meetings of the services cluster.  Subject to confirmation of the dates of the upcoming Services 
Cluster by the Special Session of the Council for Tr ade in Services, he suggested that the next 
meeting be held during the week of 22 November.   It was so agreed.  
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
105. The Chairperson  thanked the United States and Mexico for their new papers, and pointed out 
that over the last two meetings four delegations had put forward new papers .  He enquired whether 
other delegations intended to s ubmit papers in November, in addition to the forthcoming U.S. 
transparency proposal and the cases for analyses to be provided by Brazil.  Noting that one of the 
discussed at the 8 June  informal meeting was that of "changing gears" and moving to the next stage of 
negotiations, the Chairperson observed that the stat ements of several delegations during the current 
meeting showed their determination to make progress.   Recalling that Members at the June informal 
meeting had discussed the possibility of holding anot her informal meeting between the September and 
November Services Clusters, he proposed to hold cons ultations with interested  delegations to explore 
options.   
106. The delegation of the United States  reiterated that the U.S. remained engaged in the Working 
Party, where they had put forward a paper on horizont al transparency disciplines.  For cases such as 
transparency, a horizontal approach might be the most practical way to proceed.  The delegation 
emphasized, however, that for other disciplines a sectoral approach was most practical.  Some 
proposals for horizontal disciplines other than transpar ency had been tabled, and the U.S. hoped that 
Members would not try to merge one approach with th e other.  In regard to the Chair's consultations, 
although some delegations had put forward the idea of  consolidating texts, the U.S. registered its 
reservations at that stage as it had not yet tabled its  text for horizontal transparency disciplines.  The 
Working Party should allow for other proposals to be tabled as well.  The U.S. views were without 
prejudice to other Member's views on what should constitute horizontal and sectoral disciplines, respectively.    S/WPDR/M/27 
 Page 17 
 
 
107. The delegation of Japan  also noted the submission of new papers, and the positive stance by a 
number of delegations on "changing gears".  It was im portant to try to find ways to make progress.  
Japan thus supported informal consultations by th e Chairperson to explore options, rather than 
continuing discussions in a conceptual way.   
108. The delegation of Australia  also expressed the need to work  actively and to make progress in 
the Working Party.  Examining sector-specific disciplines for licensing/qualification requirements and 
procedures, and for technical standards, could be a practical way to move forward.  The Accountancy 
Disciplines , possibly with a limited number of changes a nd additions, could also be applicable to 
sectors such as architecture and engineering services. 
109. The delegation of India  echoed some of the U.S. concerns.  Although there were a number of 
new proposals, there might still be gaps, and ther efore consolidation might be premature.   
110. The Chairperson  summarized by noting there was a common wish among Members to make 
progress, and that he would conduct consultations to that end.   
__________