RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/M/43
28 June 2000
(00-2653)
Council for Trade in Services
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 26 MAY 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 26 May 2000.  The proposed agenda for
the meeting is contained in the Airgram WTO/AIR/1308.  No points were raised under Other
Business.
2. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the agenda as circulated.
3. The Council so agreed
A. REVIEW OF AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES UNDER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE 
ANNEX
4. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had agreed that the Secretariat
would circulate an informal paper containing "Issues for Possible Consideration in the Review of Air
Transport".  The purpose of the paper, circulated as Job No. 2541, was to provide a suggested list of
issues which Members might wish to take up in their work on the review of air transport.  It coveredboth aspects of the review:  developments in the se ctor and the operation of the Annex.  The item had
been placed on the agenda to provide an opportunity for delegations to comment on the paper, with a
view to revising it for use in the review.
5. The representative of Japan said that his delegation could go along with the Secretariat
document, in light of the fact that it reflected the proposal that the Council should review
developments in bilateral, regional and plurilateral treaties and that it did not prejudge the outcome of
the review.  It was a neutral, factual checklist.  He sought clarification from the Secretariat on the lastitem of the paper, item D, about how the effects of the exclusion from the GATS of traffic rights and
services directly related to traffic rights would be analysed.
6. The representative of Switzerland said that the Secretariat paper was comprehensive and
instrumental for the conduct of the review.  Whilst  his delegation could support the separation in the
review between the analysis of developments in the sector and of the operation of the Annex, thatseparation should not be rigid, and should allow for issues which pertained to developments in the
sector to be taken up also when the operation of the Annex was being discussed, and vice versa.  With
respect to the clarification sought by Japan on item D in the Secretariat paper, he was of the view that
addressing such a question would be useful to the analysis of the developments in the sectors.
7. The representative of Australia drew Members' attention to the paper which had been
submitted by her delegation, and circulated as document Job No. 3203.  The paper reproduced a
survey, which Australia had been mandated to carry out, on the extent to which APEC member
economies had implemented the eight recommendations for more competitive air services.  She
suggested that, in view of the lateness of the hour, th e paper be taken up at the next meeting.  She said
that the review work needed to be forward-lookin g and Member-driven.  In her delegation's view, theS/C/M/43
Page 2
work programme needed to address issues such as fu ture trends in the industry, trade-related effects of
the different air service agreements in operation, including plurilateral and multilateral proposals,
looking also at some GATS-based opt ions, trade-distortive practices, such as cabotage and restrictive
ownership and control provisions, market access related to air freight, considered separately from
market access issues related to passenger services, and the possible extension of the Annex, as thelatter was the basic mandate of the review.
8. The representative of New Zealand said that the Secretariat paper was useful, but that his
delegation also continued to recognize the importance of Members' own contributions to the
discussion.  He observed that the first part of the Secretariat paper, dealing with developments in the
sector, was very comprehensive, but suggested that, in addition to the items listed in section I(n), the
issue of the ability to establish or own a stand-alone airline in another country be also addressed.
Differently from cabotage, an international air service calling at two or more points in a foreigncountry and carrying traffic between those points, which was referred to the "eighth freedom" of air
services, the ability to establish or own an airline in another country had recently come to be referred
as the "ninth freedom" and was virtually never covered by bilateral air transport agreements.  In
New Zealand's case, there were no specific restrictions on foreign investment in domestic airlines and
his delegation was of the view that discussion of the issue would be useful in terms of the reviewprocess.  He also observed that the proposed sub-sector by sub-sector approach might prove to be too
cumbersome and result in a fragmented view of the developments in the sector.  Therefore, he
suggested retaining a certain degree of flexibility in the discussion, so as to allow Members to have a
more general overview of developments in air transport services.
9. On the second section of the Secretariat paper, on the operation of the Annex, he noted that
the first part was focused on the operation of the Annex in relation to the three auxiliary services laid
down in paragraph 3 of the Annex;  this was somewhat limiting, as it did not encompass the broader
context of the review of the operation of the Annex per se , as provided for in paragraph 5 of the
Annex.  With respect to section II.B, he said that  the focus should not have been on the operation of
the Annex for services not directly related to traffic rights, but rather on identifying the fairly narrowset of "services directly related to traffic rights", so that all other services would automatically fall
outside the exclusion set out in paragraph 2 of the A nnex.  He sought further clarification on what was
envisaged in Section II.C.  He found the heading of  section II.D somewhat limiting, and suggested a
broader formulation to encompass the examination of current GATS and Annex provisions and their
relationship to commercial and regulatory issues conf ronting the air transport services sector, so as to
allow for a positive case to be made that certain existing GATS provisions had the potential to cater to
some of the issues being grappled with by operators and regulators.
10. The representative of Poland supported dividing the discussion into two phases, developments
in the sector and operation of the Annex.  She reserved her right to further comment on the review and
on the paper by Australia.
11. The representative of the United States noted the comprehensiveness of the paper, and added
that it represented a good checklist to ensure consideration of all appropriate services.  However, he
suggested that it might be useful to reduce the extent of the list by eliminating some services which
might not be appropriate candidates for the review at that stage, including services performed in the
exercise of governmental authority, such as air traffic control, slot allocation and, in some cases,
airport management, as well as non-commercial activities such as private recreational flying.  To
ensure that the most important services received  adequate review, he suggested grouping together
some of the more ancillary of the directly related services, which might include catering, refuelling
and services auxiliary to all modes of transport.  By featuring the three directly related services
covered by the GATS at the beginning of the devel opments section and of the operation of the Annex
section, the paper illustrated that efficiency might be gained by organizing the review topically.S/C/M/43
Page 3
12. The representative of Canada said that the li st was too wide.  Her delegation could agree with
the issues in part I, part II.A and II.D.  However, she could not support part II.B, because it involved
the consideration of services not identified in the Annex and which were hence outside the scope of
the review, nor part II.C, because it presupposed that Members had agreed that additional disciplines
were needed, whereas such a decision would have to be in itself subject to negotiations and could notbe presumed.  She could, however, support a modified  version of part II.C, which would not refer to
the possible need for "additional" disciplines.
13. The representative of the European Communities said that he understood the document to be
an open-ended checklist of issues, to which Members could add other elements and hence was not in
favour of any substantial modification of the list.  His delegation wanted the review to be forward-
looking and to address also the possible expansion of the Annex, implicitly covered by paragraph D of
section II, and would prefer not to change the language in the paper.
14. By way of preliminary comments, the representative of Mexico wondered whether the
proposals in the paper had been made by Members.  For example, he noted that section I of the paper
contained a reference to economic and regulatory developments in the sector, but that no agreement
had been reached that the issue was part of the developments in the sector, and that it was up to
Members to reach such a decision.  Similarly, section II.C referred to additional disciplines under theAgreement, but "additional disciplines" were nowhere  mentioned in the Annex, nor was the aim of the
review to create additional disciplines.  He said that the review was distinct from the negotiations.
His delegation had agreed to the Secretariat drawing up a checklist, but such a checklist had to be
consistent with the requirements of the Annex and had to result from Members' proposals with respect
to developments in the sector and the operation of the Annex.
15. On a preliminary basis, the representative of Egypt supported the distinction in the paper
between the developments in the sector and the operation of the Annex.  He stressed that the review
was distinct from the negotiations, that the impact on development and developing countries should
be taken into account during the review process and that any suggestion to expand the scope or
coverage of the Annex should not prejudice Members' positions.
16. Responding to questions by delegations, a representative of the WTO Secretariat explained
that the paper was indeed very comprehensive, as it was intended as a checklist of issues which
Members might wish to consider, without any prejudice as to whether they would actually consider
them.  As concerned the question raised by Japan on section II.D, he concurred that it was not clear
how the examination would be carried out, but observ ed that it seemed to be part of the mandate of
the review and that a judgment by Members on the issue appeared to be called for.  He concurred with
the comments by New Zealand that the "ninth freedom" had been omitted from the list of issues insection I(n).  He agreed that a sub-sector by s ub-sector examination of developments in the sector
would be very burdensome, and noted in this respect that, in the chapeau of paragraph 1, it was
suggested that sub-sectors might not be all examined individually.  As concerned the operation of the
Annex and the focus on the three sectors covered by the GATS, he said that section II was intended to
cover the operation of the Annex per se , including its exclusion of traffic rights and services related to
them.  On section II.C, he said that the Annex ca lled on Members to consider whether the coverage of
the Annex should remain unchanged or expanded to include other services, in which latter case an
amendment to the Annex, and hence to the GATS, would be required;  he agreed that the term
"disciplines" was probably not the most appropriate one, but said that section II.C was not meant to
prejudge Members' decision on the matter of expanding the coverage of the GATS.  As concernedsection II.D, he said that the formulation of the heading could be improved.  With respect to the
comments made by the United States representative, he concurred that it should be made clear that
when air traffic control and airport management services were services supplied in the exercise of
governmental authority, as defined in Article I.3 of the GATS, they were outside the scope of theS/C/M/43
Page 4
Agreement, but added that, if they did not fulfil the conditions in Article I.3(c), they could eventually
fall within the scope of the GATS.
17. The Chairman said that the Secretariat paper was intended solely as an aid for the review
process, and he felt that a substantial re-drafting of the paper was not warranted at that stage.  The
representative of Mexico said that his delegation had expressed concerns with respect to the paper,
and added that greater discussion was necessary on the overall approach.  The Chairman said that he
recognized that the delegation of Mexico had raised concerns, but noted that several delegations hadexpressed satisfaction with the paper and suggested that it not be changed.
18. The Council so agreed.
B. REVIEW OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON ACCOUNTING RATES IN 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
19. The Chairman recalled that, at the meeting on 25 February, the Council had held a discussion
on how to proceed with the review  of the Understanding on Accounting Rates in telecommunications.
It was the wish of Members at that point that the Council should invite the ITU to provide a progress
report on their work on reforming the accounting rates system, as it was felt that such a report could
facilitate the Council's work in the review.  Accord ingly, the ITU had provided an informal note on
the work undertaken in this area, contained in Job No. 2947 dated 11 May 2000.
20. The representative of Mexico said that the informal note was very informative of the status of
work in the ITU on reforming the accounting rate system.  He noted that work in the Study Group 3
was still underway;  this demonstrated that the conditions which had led to the adoption of the
Understanding on Accounting Rates continued to be valid, and were possibly more relevant still.
21. The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the comments made and revert to the
item at its next meeting.
C. REVISED DRAFT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WTO AND 
THE ITU
22. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had held a discussion on a revised
version of the draft cooperation agreement between the WTO and ITU.  Several comments were made
on the draft, and the revision of certain provisions was suggested, including those relating to the
participation of the WTO Secretariat at ITU conferences and meetings.  The conclusion at that
meeting was that the two Secretariats would consult with a view to preparing an amended text to be
discussed and, in that respect, he drew Members' attention to the revised version of the draft
cooperation agreement, contained in Job No. 2118/Rev.1, and to a communication from the ITU
entitled "WTO participation at ITU Conferences and Meetings", circulated as Job No. 2948.  He also
recalled that hope had been expressed at the last meeting that an agreement could be reached on thedraft in time for consideration by the ITU Council at its meeting in July.
23. The representative of Japan expressed support for the revised draft text.  However, his
delegation still had two comments.  First, he noted that that an inconsistency existed between
paragraph 13 and its agreed commentary;  according to the commentary, the cooperation agreement
would be provisionally enforceable, following approval by the General Council and the ITU Council,from the date of its signature, but would enter into  force following the exchange of instruments, as
stated in paragraph 13.  Second, he indicated that the reference in the fourth line of paragraph 7 of the
Preamble, which was taken from the Annex on Telecommunications, should have been "practicable",
and not "practical".S/C/M/43
Page 5
24. The representative of Switzerland sought a clarification on the parenthesis in paragraph 4.
His understanding was that, if the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference had approved it, the cooperation
agreement would enter into force in 2002.  The last sentence on page 3 of the ITU paper stated that
the Plenipotentiary Conference could accept the agreement, modify the Convention and grant the
WTO observership, implying that, once the agreement was in force, the ITU could change itsprovisions.  Hence, the parenthesis in paragr aph 4 was superfluous and should be deleted.
25. The representative of New Zealand indicated that the reference in the last sentence of
paragraph 13 should be changed from "Article" to "paragraph".
26. Responding to questions raised by delegations, a representative of the ITU Secretariat noted
the point raised by Japan and said that paragraph 13 and the agreed commentary would be aligned, to
reflect the fact that the agreement would take effe ct on the day following the exchange of instruments.
With respect to the comment by Switzerland, he said that, as explained in Job No. 2984, the next ITUPlenipotentiary Conference was expected to amend the ITU Convention to align the WTO with the
other international intergovernmental organizations with observer status.  However, it was not entirely
possible to predict such an outcome, hence the parenthesis in paragraph 4.  In this respect, he also
drew Members' attention to the fact that, in practice, the WTO was already treated as the other UN
Agencies.
27. The representative of Mexico said that he had not received instructions and was not in a
position to accept the text.  However, if a consensus was reached, he could accept that the Council
adopt the agreement if his delegation had not raised any objections within the following ten days.
28. Summarising the discussion on this item, the Chairman proposed that the Council endorse the
latest draft text, with the two corrections suggested by Japan and the one suggested by New Zealand,
pending the concurrence of the delegation of Mexico during a ten-day period.  He would inform
Members once the ten days had elapsed.
29. The Council so agreed.
D. REOPENING OF THE FOURTH PROTOCOL FOR ACCEPTANCE BY DOMINICA
30. The Chairman recalled that at the last meeting of the Council, under Other Business, the
delegation of Dominica had made a statement requesting that the Council consider the reopening, for
acceptance by Dominica, the Fourth Protocol to the GATS relating to Basic Telecommunications.
The statement had been welcomed by several Members and the item accordingly placed on the agenda
of the present meeting for consideration.  He drew delegations' attention to document S/C/W/135,
containing a communication form Dominica on the matter, as well as document S/C/W/143,
containing a draft decision for adoption by the Council, which had been prepared according to the
standard format followed in such situations.
31. The representative of Dominica recalled that, at the last Council meeting, he had asked the
Council to exceptionally re-open the Fourth Protocol for acceptance by his delegation.  Dominica had
not accepted the Protocol during the prescribed period because it had been unable to complete all the
necessary technical work in time, as a result of the weak administrative structure and technical
deficiencies characteristic of small states.  His delegation had been encouraged by, and was gratefulfor, the strong expressions of support from other delegations.  If the Council decided to re-open the
Fourth Protocol, Dominica's acceptance would be yet another demonstration of its intention to
contribute to the multilateral trading system, but, more importantly, to give practical expression to that
intention.  He explained that Dominica was not a provider of telecommunication services;  however,
Dominica believed that acceptance of the Protocol could help to bring down the hightelecommunication costs that it faced and that were preventing its participation in the growingS/C/M/43
Page 6
international telecommunication and information technology sector.  Dominica believed that there
might be potential in the telecommunication sector and it was taking steps to provide a liberalized and
competitive environment, with open entry to stimulate the introduction of an increased range of
services and to encourage investment, and was doing so as part of its on-going economic
diversification efforts;  Dominica hoped that the WTO would prove supportive in this respect.  Hetherefore requested that the Council agree to re-open the Fourth Protocol to enable Dominica to
accept.  Due to a small administrative problem, which he hoped to be able to resolve that same day, he
asked that the Council agree to keep the Protocol open over a few days.
32. The representative of Saint Lucia expressed strong support for the adoption of the draft
decision to re-open the Fourth Protocol, and proposed that a suitable flexible date be inserted to allow
Dominica sufficient time to resolve the administrative difficulty it had mentioned.
33. A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that he understood the technical problem
to concern the availability of the full powers to sign the instrument of acceptance, and suggested that
the difficulty might be more easily resolved if the Council agreed to re-open the Protocol until an
advanced date.
34. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the draft decision to re-open the Fourth
Protocol for acceptance until 30 June 2000.
35. The Council so agreed.
E. REOPENING OF THE FIFTH PROTOCOL FOR ACCEPTANCE BY GHANA
36. The Chairman drew Members' attention to document S/C/W/144, containing a
communication from Ghana requesting that the Council reopen the Fifth Protocol to the GATS
relating to financial services for acceptance by Ghana.  He also referred to document S/C/W/145,containing a draft decision for consideration and adoption by the Council in that regard.
37. The representative of Ghana explained that Ghana had missed the earlier deadlines for
acceptance of the Fifth Protocol as the domestic ratification process had taken longer than originally
expected.  The Protocol had been approved and si gned by his President on 15 December 1999 and the
instrument of acceptance deposited with the WTO Secretariat on 11 May 2000.  With thecommunication in document S/C/W/144, his delegation had requested that the item be place on the
agenda of the Council and that a draft decision to re-open the Fifth Protocol for acceptance be
prepared.  He recalled that on 11 June 1999, the Committee on Financial Services had decided not to
extend further the deadline for acceptance of the Protocol, and to re-open it if requested and if
endorsed by the Services Council.  He therefore requested the Council to agree to re-open the Protocol
for Ghana's acceptance.
38. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the draft decision to re-open the Fifth Protocol
for acceptance by Ghana until 30 June 2000.
39. The Council so agreed.
F. NOTIFICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO ARTICLES III:4 AND IV:2 
OF THE GATS – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES
40. The Chairman explained that item F on the agenda concerned a statement by the United States
on notifications to the Council pursuant to Articles III:4 and IV:2 of the GATS.  The statement was
contained in document S/C/W/148.S/C/M/43
Page 7
41. The representative of the United States noted that in the Working Party on Domestic
Regulation Members were discussing possible improvem ents to transparency provisions in the GATS.
With respect to existing transparency provisions in  the Agreement, he said that it did not appear that
all Members had complied with the notification provision in Article III:4, regarding enquiry points,
nor that all relevant Members had complied with the notification provision in Article IV:2, regardingcontact points.  He suggested that the Secretaria t be asked to compile a list of all notifications
received under the two provisions.  In addition, noting that such notifications were rather difficult to
locate on the WTO web-site, he suggested that the Secretariat collect the two sets of notifications in
one, or possibly two, easily-located areas of the WTO web-site.
42. Noting that the proposals implied no difficulties for the WTO Secretariat, the Chairman
suggested that the Council agree to the two proposals by the delegation of the United States.
43. The Council so agreed.
G. NOTIFICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V OF THE GATS
– STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES
44. The Chairman indicated that the item had been placed on the agenda at the request of the
United States delegation and that it concerned notifications to the Council pursuant to Article V of the
GATS.  The statement was contained in document S/C/W/147.
45. The representative of the United States noted that Article V of the GATS required, inter alia ,
Members who were parties to an economic integratio n agreement to promptly notify such agreements,
and any enlargements or any significant modificati on thereof, to the Council for Trade in Services.
However, it appeared that a number of such agreements had not been notified to the Services Council.
In addition, several such agreements had been notified, but had not been transmitted to the Committeeon Regional Trade Agreements for the purpose of carrying out the required examinations.  He said
that his delegation would welcome a discussion on how to improve the timeliness of such
notifications and transmittals and suggested that the Services Council act on agreements notified but
not yet referred to the CRTA.  He said that this w ould help to ensure that the obligations in Article V
were being fulfilled, with a view to assessing the ex tent to which such agreements were beneficial to
trade and the overall goals of multilateral trade liberalization.
46. The representative of Japan strongly supported the proposal by the United States.  He recalled
that the notifications were required under Article V when Members were parties to an economic
integration agreement which complied with the conditio ns set out in Article V.  The representatives of
Hong Kong, China and Korea  also expressed support for the proposal and reserved their right to revert
to the item at the next meeting.
47. The representative of the European Communities said that he would revert to the proposal at
the next Council meeting, but pointed out that there was no requirement under Article V to transmit
economic integration agreements to the CRTA.
48. The representative of Switzerland welcomed the initiative and expressed interest in having
further clarification from the United States delegation on what they meant by the suggestion that the
Services Council should "act" on agreements notified but not referred to the CRTA.
49. The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statements made and revert to this
item for a fuller discussion at its next meeting.S/C/M/43
Page 8
H. ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION OF DOCUMENTS - STATEMENT BY URUGUAY
50. The Chairman indicated that the item had been placed on the agenda at the request of the
delegation of Uruguay and that it concerned the electronic dissemination of documents.
51. The representative of Uruguay explained that the Secretariat sent documents electronically to
delegations, but that this was not a generalized practice.  He therefore suggested that, without
prejudice to existing dissemination procedures, the Secretariat automatically send all documents
relating to the Council for Trade in Services and its subsidiary bodies electronically to delegations, in
order to increase efficiency and cost-savings and in  view of the negotiations under way.  This would
ensure that all delegations received the documents at the same time and that they could immediately
re-transmit them to their authorities.
52. The representative of Canada supported the proposal, and suggested that, in addition, all
informal documents be also electronically disseminated and that the symbol for the airgram convening
services meetings be changed to include th e letter "S", so as to be easily traced.
53. The representatives of Morocco, Slovenia , the United States  and Poland  were also in favour
of the proposals by Uruguay and Canada, and the re presentative of Poland sought clarification on why
documents became available on the Document Dissemination Facility (DDF) with a delay of a few
days.
54. A representative of the WTO Secretariat said that, though very attractive in principle, the
proposals entailed a number of technical complications.  As concerned the electronic dissemination of
documents, he explained that the document distribution system was centralized;  serial numbers were
centrally allocated by the division in charge of documentation, and it was not possible to adopt a
different procedure for services-related documents.  He had consulted with colleagues, but itunfortunately appeared that a formalized process of electronic dissemination of documents might not
be feasible.  However, he encouraged delegations to communicate their e-mail addresses to the
Services Division, so that they could benefit from the electronic dissemination which was already
carried out informally.  As concerned the DDF, his understanding was that formal documents were
available for Members by mid-night on the day in which they were distributed;  he would look intothe possibility that, for services documents, informal documents also be included.  He also informed
delegations that the DDF was being improved and that a new version would be operational by
September, and said that a presentation of the new system could be organized for interested
delegations.
55. The representatives of Hungary and Hong Kong, China
 expressed appreciation for the fact
that the DDF was being improved and support for the availability of informal documents on the DDF.
The representative of Argentina observed that the reason why informal documents were not available
on the DDF was that they were never de-restricted and he could support the proposal that they be
placed on the DDF on condition that the status of such documents did not change and that they would
never be de-restricted.
56. The representative of Uruguay observed that documents were not necessarily available on the
DDF on the day of their distribution, and that the process often implied several days of delay.  He said
that he understood the technical difficulties involved in his proposal, but nonetheless urged the
Secretariat, in view of the informal practice alr eady in place, as far as possible to disseminate
documents, including informal ones, to delegations electronically.
57. The Chairman said that the Council would take note of the statements made.S/C/M/43
Page 9
I. REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS – COMESA
58. The Chairman drew Members' attention to the request for observer status from the Common
Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, COMESA, contained in a note circulated as Job No. 3069
and dated 17 May 2000.
59. The representative of Kenya explained that COMESA was the largest regional economic
grouping in Africa, comprising 21 members.  Its regional integration agenda was very advanced, as a
Free-Trade Area was expected to be achieved by 31 October 2001 and a Customs Union by 2004.  He
emphasized the important role that regional economic  groupings such as COMESA played as stepping
stones for the eventual integration of their Members' economies into the global economy.  He noted
the priority attached by the Director General to the issue of non-resident missions, and explained that
most of COMESA's Members had no re sident mission in Geneva and that it would be of great help if
a representative of COMESA could be present at meetings to disseminate information to its members.His delegation, which had the presidency of COMESA, urged Members to give positive consideration
to the request for observership.  The representatives of Egypt and Mauritius
 joined in asking the
Council to give positive consid eration to COMESA's request.
60. The representative of Malaysia said that his delegation was happy to note that COMESA was
requesting observer status, as this pointed to their in terest in participating in the multilateral trading
system, and took note of the fact that most of its members were developing countries.  However, with
due respect for the request, he observed that systemic problems did exist and other regional bodies
were also awaiting decision on their requests for observership, and hence begged for COMESA's
indulgence to wait until a solution was arrived at with respect to all requests.
61. The Chairman suggested that the request from  COMESA be added to the list of other
outstanding requests from regional organizations, contained in documents S/C/W/19/Rev.3.  He noted
that the issue of observership was on the agenda of the General Council and hoped that a solution
would be arrived at in the near future.
__________