RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/WPDR/M/24 
22 January 2004 
 (04-0213) 
Working Party on Domestic Regulation  
   
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 3 DECEMBER 2003 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held its twenty-fourth meeting on 
3 December under the chairpersonship of Mr. Johann es Bernabe of the Philippines.  The agenda for 
the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/2220.  Members  agreed to adopt the agenda.   
2. Under Other Business , the Chairperson  said he wished to raise the issue of the listing of 
documents on the airgrams for the meeting.  He also noted that New Zealand had circulated a new 
document for discussion under professional servi ces (JOB(03)/219, dated 3 December 2003). 
A. ADOPTION  OF THE  ANNUAL  REPORT    
3.   The Chairperson  observed that the first item on the agenda was the adoption of the annual 
report to the Council for Trade in Services.  The draft report was contained in document 
S/WPDR/W/26, dated 12 November , and covered the period since th e previous report, which had 
been adopted and then circulated as S/WPDR/4 dated 3 July 2003.  He noted that, together with the 
previous report, the new report completed the WPDR 's reporting requirement to the Council for 2003. 
4. The Chairperson  asked if any Member wished to make comments on the new report.   No 
comments were received.  He then observed that the word "forthcoming", in the second sentence of 
paragraph 1 should be de leted, as the Report on the Meeting had subsequently been circulated.  
Members  agreed to adopt the annual report, as amended.   
B. DEVELOPMENT  OF REGULATORY  DISCIPLINES  UNDER  GATS  ARTICLE  VI:4    
1. Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Disciplines 
Singapore’s paper on GATS Article VI:5  
5. The Chairperson  noted that, at the previous formal meeting on 30 September, Members had 
made further comments on Singapore's informal pa per concerning GATS Article VI:5 (JOB(03)/113 
dated 11 June), as recorded in the Report on the Meeting.  Although the discussion seemed to have 
more or less concluded, the Working Party had asked  the Secretariat to look for files or documents on 
the history of Article VI:5, and to report at the curre nt meeting.  The Secretariat had been asked not to 
report on personal notes from the file, but only on circulated documents.   
6. The Chairperson  observed that the Secretariat had noted at the September meeting that it was 
unlikely to find a substantial amount of documented hi story on Article VI:5, considering that much of 
the negotiation had taken place in informal discussi ons based on room documents.  The Secretariat, 
however, would check what information was availabl e.  He reiterated that any comments from the 
Secretariat did not constitute an interpretation of  the GATS, which only Members could give.  He 
then asked the Secretariat to present their information. 
                                                      
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/24 
Page 2  
 
7. A representative of the Secretariat
 confirmed there was not much new information to report, 
particularly on the basis of circulated documents  as had been requested.  The additional information 
that had been found confirmed what had been said ear lier, i.e. that Article VI:5 had been conceived 
basically as a temporary solution during the Uruguay Round to secure the value of commitments.  The 
Article also reflected the thinking at the time on the possible role of international standards, as found 
in Article VI:5(b).  That sub-paragraph was inspir ed by what existed on the goods side, especially the 
TBT and SPS agreements, in relation to the use of international standards to determine the necessity 
and reasonableness of non-discriminatory measures.  The Secretariat did not have much further to add, but said that if anything else were found , it would be presented to the Working Party. 
8. The Chairperson
 opened the floor for any further comments or questions by Members on 
either the Secretariat's statement or on Singapore's paper.  Noting the Secretariat's offer to continue 
looking for information, he suggested the item might remain on the agenda. 
9. The representative of the United States  noted that the WPDR had discussed the Singapore 
paper in two previous meetings and, as the Ch airperson had indicated, had been waiting for the 
Secretariat to come back with information.  W ith that in mind, she was concerned about items 
remaining on the agenda and, at the last meeting,  her delegation had repeated earlier comments in an 
effort to react to all the agenda items.  The repr esentative noted that any further information from the 
Secretariat could be put on agenda at any time.   She also asked about Singapore's intentions. 
10. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said his delegation was flexible about retaining the 
item on the agenda, on the understanding that it could al ways be put back on the agenda if there were 
any further comments from delegations.  He thanke d the Secretariat for sharing information on the 
negotiating history, and took note that Article VI:5  was perhaps conceived in the first instance as a 
temporary solution until Article VI:4 disciplines were  developed, and that the purpose was to secure 
the value of the commitments negotiated.  With regard  to the reference in Article VI:5 to the criteria 
listed in Article VI:4(a-c), he said that perhaps it indicated the minimum standard that Uruguay Round 
negotiators had found to be necessary and, theref ore, Article VI:5 also reflected the minimum 
standard for developing any necessary disciplines.  The representative took note of the Secretariat's 
mention of  Article VI:5(b) regarding international sta ndards.  He stated that, in discussing the 
development of regulatory disciplines, the role of t echnical standards, and especially of international 
standards, had not been fully deliberated. 
11. The delegation of Singapore  said they had tabled the paper to facilitate discussion on GATS 
Articles VI:4 and VI:5, and that their paper had ach ieved its purposes.  They were open with respect 
to the way forward, and could accept that the paper not be a standing item on the agenda. 
12. The Chairperson  concluded by noting that the reason he  had offered to retain the item on the 
agenda was the offer from the Secretariat to search for additional information in the files.  Perhaps, 
however, the way forward was to make a mental not e of the Secretariat offer;  if any further 
information were found, the Working Party coul d put the item back on the agenda.  Members  
approved the Chairperson's suggestion. 
EC Proposal for Disciplines on Licensing Procedures  
13. The Chairperson  noted that, at the September meeting, Members had made extensive 
comments on the European Communities' proposal  for disciplines on licensing procedures 
(S/WPDR/W/25, dated 10 July 2003), as also recorded  in the Report of the Meeting.  He asked if 
delegations had any further comments or questions on the EC paper. 
14. The delegation of Japan  said that the discussion of the EC  paper was a useful exercise, and 
they were reflecting on how to further the pro cess.  Concerning the scope of the proposal, they 
referred to the definition of licensing in the paper, stating that it was the very core of what Members  S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 3 
 
 
wished to address.  They sought further clarification on the mention of automatic authorization procedures in footnote 3 (on page 3), and whet her it included simple registration and filing 
procedures.  Regarding the scope and possible stru cture of disciplines, the delegation enquired about 
the EC's intentions regarding disciplines on othe r aspects of domestic regulation, such as licensing 
requirements or qualification requi rements and procedures.  On pa ragraph 19, sub-paragraph 12(b) 
concerning the listing of various services, the dele gation asked how the EC saw the feasibility of 
listing every committed service, including at the sub -federal level, and whether an independent, self-
standing list was needed.  On the independence of regulatory bodies, the delegation said it was a very important element to consider in future disciplines,  and they wished to have more information from 
other delegations regarding the role that  professional bodies played in licensing.  
15. The delegation of Norway
 agreed that the proposals by the EC and Japan were helping to 
move the process forward.  As earlier mentioned,  reducing administrative burden was an important 
goal.  On sub-paragraph 4 of the EC paper, whic h stated that application procedures should be as 
simple as possible, they asked if it was a best-ende avour clause.  Where it stated in the same sub-
paragraph that applicants shall in principle appro ach only one competent aut hority, they asked what 
was meant by "in principle".  On sub-paragraph 5,  regarding accepting applications in electronic 
format and the conditions of authenticity of documents, the delegation asked what "wherever 
possible" meant, e.g. if it meant where physical ly possible.  On sub-paragraph 8, on informing 
applicants if the application is complete, they ask ed if the authorities must notify both complete and 
incomplete applications.  Regardi ng sub-paragraph 11, on a license entering into effect immediately, 
the delegation asked if it meant that licenses were to enter into effect immediately unless otherwise 
specified.  On sub-paragraph 9, requiring decisions  to be taken promptly, they noted that sub-
paragraph 12(a) only mentioned the time normally require d;  they asked if all Members were therefore 
required to set absolute time frames for applications .  On the requirement in sub-paragraph 12 that 
Members compile all information on licensing requirements, and make it available in one place, they asked if it had been done with respect to the EC .  On sub-paragraph 14 regarding comments, they 
asked who was to be given the opportunity to comment.  Regarding s ub-paragraph 10 on fees 
charged, they said the most important aspect was that fee rates were publicly available;  discriminatory charges could be National Treatment  measures, and should be scheduled accordingly. 
16. The Chairperson
 asked all delegations making prepar ed interventions to provide the 
Secretariat with an electronic version whenever po ssible, emphasizing that it would greatly facilitate 
preparing the Report on the Meeting.   
17. The representative of Hong Kong, China , regarding paragraph 6 of the paper, agreed with the 
EC that disciplines under Article VI:4 should not overl ap Articles XVI and XVII.  He noted that when 
his government approached regulators, one question they asked was what could or could not be done 
under Article VI:4 disciplines.  Many regulators were not familiar with the structure of the GATS, he 
stated, especially the need to look to various parts of  the agreement for informat ion.  He asked if there 
were elements in paragraph 6 that might be useful  for disciplines under Article VI:4, i.e. on where the 
line was actually drawn between GATS Articles.  Noti ng that the Working Party probably agreed that 
regulatory measures which were discriminatory in nature should not be the subject of disciplines per 
se, the representative wondered if it could also be agreed that measures under Article VI:4 should not 
be discriminatory.  He asked the EC if para graph 6 would encompass that interpretation. 
18. The delegation of the Republic of Korea  welcomed the EC effort to stimulate discussion on 
licensing procedures, and said that the terminology n eeded to be defined clearly.  Korea believed most 
countries were of the opinion that a license was a pe rmission for which certain condition needed to be 
fulfilled in order to supply a service.  Regarding th e examples in paragraph 6, however, there were 
different opinions.  They asked the EC fo r concrete examples of licenses and permits. 
19. The delegation of Indonesia  regarding sub-paragraph 11 of the paper, agreed that a license, 
once granted, should enter into effect immediat ely in accordance with the terms and conditions S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 4  
 
specified therein, and that such conditions might in themselves delay entry into effect.  They sought clarification that Indonesia's multi-tier licensing process would be permitted under sub-paragraph 11, 
stating that the multi-tier licensing process was itself a term and condition of the license that could delay entry into effect.  Regarding the transparen cy of licensing procedures and sub-paragraph 12(g) 
concerning eligibility for making an application, the delegation noted that in Indonesia, for example, 
there was a list of unfit and improper persons in bank ing.  Although the existence of the list was made 
transparent to the public, the details were confidentia l.  Only the authorities and the persons concerned 
knew who was on the list, which served as an admini strative sanction and prudential measure.  The 
delegation asked the EC to clarify that such a list would not be covered by sub-paragraph 12(g).  
20. The delegation of New Zealand
, responding to Japan's question on sub-paragraph 3 of the EC 
paper concerning the separation of regulatory bodies from services suppliers, noted that their paper on 
recognition addressed that situation.   
21. The delegation of China , regarding the term "public consu ltation processes" in sub-paragraph 
9 of the paper, asked it how was defined in EC c ountries, and how such processes were different from 
a public hearing, in order to help unders tand the contents of the paragraph.   
22. The representative of the European Communities  thanked delegations for their continued 
interest in the EC paper, noting there were quite a number of questions and valid points.  On Japan's 
and Korea's questions on scope, the EC  had deliberately attempted to de fine the scope very widely, as 
a "license" in one jurisdiction might be termed "p ermit" in another, even if the latter had the 
characteristics of a license.  If there were certain  requirements to be filled by an applicant, then those 
procedures should be covered, she stated.  On Japan's second question, she said that simple 
registration would probably not fall under the EC proposal, but if the registration included fulfilling 
requirements then it might be different, and decided on a case-by-case basis.  On the transparency of 
licensing procedures as contained in  sub-paragraph 12, regarding how  the list was published, the EC 
did not wish to prescribe to Members, and noted th at different authorities could have different ways, 
as long as it was easy to find the information.  As an example, Members' contact or enquiry points 
might give Internet links to regulatory authorities.   
23. On Norway's questions, the represen tative of the European Communities  said that "simple as 
possible" was not only a best endeavour requirement, and that the "shall" in the text was deliberate.  
They were aware, however, that it was difficult to set absolute standards for all Members, and said 
there was a margin for interpretation.  Similarly, on "in principle", it was preferable that governments 
had a simple way of doing things and, if that w as not possible, the authorities should explain.  On 
electronic format, sub-paragraph 5 was intended to provide for the most simple and easily accessible 
method for applicants;  the representative recogni zed, however, there might be circumstances where 
that was not possible.  The EC had the same appr oach for the recognition of electronic signatures. 
24. The representative of the European Communities  also noted that several delegations had 
questions on the entry into force of licenses.  A lthough licenses should enter into force immediately, 
she said there might be procedures which in themse lves created a certain dela y.  She asked Indonesia 
what they had meant by multi-tier licenses.   Th e representative noted that Indonesia had raised a 
point on sub-paragraph 12(d) regarding eligibility , and agreed the EC should think further on the 
question on confidentiality.  They would check the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and 
discuss the issue further.  On China's question on public consultation, the EC had always argued it 
would be on a best-endeavour basis, and recognized that it was possible to have different forms for 
public consultations.  Sub-paragr aph 9 referred to the general public, and not government to 
government consultations.  There should be a flex ible interpretation, she stated, as Members had 
different approaches.  The representative also sai d she looked forward to examining New Zealand's 
paper with respect to the separation of regulatory bodies.  S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 5 
 
 
25. The representative of Hong Kong, China  took note of the EC explanation on contact points, 
and asked if the reference was to contact points under Article 4 rather than enquiry points under 
Article 3.  Regarding the EC response to "in prin ciple", he observed that it might have interesting 
applications to other areas where the same term was used.  The representative further asked on where 
the line should be drawn between Article XVII and VI:4 disciplines, and whether paragraph 6 could 
be an element to agree that domestic re gulations should be non-discriminatory. 
26. The delegation of Indonesia  on multi-tier licenses, answered th at it might comprise a license 
for the company itself, a license to conduct business,  plus a license for the persons employed.  Also 
there were licenses that were issu ed on an interim basis, with a final license issued publicly.  The 
license could include several steps to be taken by applicants.   
27. The Chairperson  noted that some questions contained in the Report on the Meeting had not 
yet been answered.   
28. The representative of the European Communities , on contact and enquiry points, responded 
that she had been thinking of Article 3, but agreed th at Article 4 was also relevant, and noted that they 
were often the same point.  On Articles VI and XVII, she said it was an important and difficult 
question, and said that paragraph 6 was almost th e same as a previous EC communication.  The 
ongoing Examples  paper exercise was also helpful in that regard.  The representative thanked 
Indonesia for their explanation, and said she would study it.   
29. The representative of Singapore , as a general point, noted that the EC and Japanese papers 
both referred to the notion of "reasonableness".  Th e concept appeared in various WTO agreements, 
he stated, and reference was made to it in the Secr etariat necessity paper.  The representative asked if 
more information could be provided by the Secr etariat on reasonableness, including whether it had 
been clarified in the jurisp rudence.  The Chairperson  asked if Members would have any objection to 
requesting the Secretariat to look into possible jurisprudence regarding the term "reasonableness". 
30. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said it certainly would be useful to have information 
on jurisprudence related to reasonableness.  He noted  that the concept of "reasonably available" was 
partly captured in the necessity paper, and wondere d if the examination of reasonableness could be 
done as a follow-up, perhaps as an addendum, to the necessity paper.   
31. The Chairperson , based on what Singapore's and Hong Kong, China's had proposed, and 
mindful of the discussions to be held on the nece ssity paper, asked if the Working Party should 
request the Secretariat to examine any jurisprude nce regarding reasonableness.  No objections were 
received.   Mindful of the further comments and requests for clarification made by Members on the  
EC paper, the Chairperson suggested the Working Part y might wish to retain the paper on the agenda.  
Again, no objections were received. 
32. The representative of the United States , regarding having the Secretariat looking at the term 
reasonableness, noted that the her delegation would make be making comments on the necessity 
paper, and would be addressing such concepts.  Sh e therefore thought it might be premature to agree 
to have the Secretariat examine reasonablen ess before discussing the necessity paper. The 
Chairperson  asked if Members therefore wished to de fer the agreement to have the Secretariat 
examine reasonableness until after discussion of the n ecessity paper.  No objections were received. 
Japan’s Draft Annex on Domestic Regulation   
33. The Chairperson  noted that Japan at the September meeting had circulated a room document, 
to help determine which parts of immigration me asures might be related to measures covered under 
Article VI:4 and therefore might therefore be covere d by regulatory disciplines.  As recorded in the 
Report on the Meeting, Members had made extensiv e comments on the room document as well as on S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 6  
 
Japan's Draft Annex on Domestic Regulation  (JOB(03)/45/Rev.1, dated 30 April 2003).  The 
Chairperson opened the floor for any further comments or questions on either of Japan's papers.  No 
further comments were received. 
34. The Chairperson
 then asked if any other Member s were considering submitting draft 
disciplines in the near future.  He had earlier not ed that the EC proposal was intended to address only 
one particular aspect of regulation, i.e. licensing pr ocedures, and was therefore almost an invitation to 
other delegations to address other aspects of Articl e VI:4 disciplines.  He strongly urged delegations 
to consider submitting further draft disciplines.  
Examples Paper  
35. The Chairperson  turned to the Examples  paper, the latest version of which was 
JOB(02)/20/Rev.7, dated 22 September.  Memb ers had noted it was useful to have the Examples  
paper on the agenda, as some of the draft disciplin es might be informed by the measures included in 
the paper.  At the September meeting, no new examples had been introduced.  In addition, few comments were made other than to note that some  Members had suggested examining the measures in 
the Examples  paper in light of the provisions of Japan’s  draft annex and the EC proposal, and to state 
that the Examples  paper remained useful as a future "cro sscheck" of the elements for disciplines by 
providing a practical context. 
36. The Chairperson
 then asked if Members wished to  make any additional comments on the 
measures in the Examples  paper, on the basis of the four questions Members had earlier agreed to ask. 
He stated that Members might also wish to comme nt on their plans to contribute additional regulatory 
examples, or to clarify existing examples. 
37. The delegation of the United States  noted that they had contributed several elements to the 
Examples  paper, in particular in the area of transparency, such as the "lack of opportunity for 
interested non-governmental market participants to  meet with government officials to discuss the 
impact of new or proposed regulations", as well as "inadequate information available, or information 
not readily available, to non-governmental market  participants about new or proposed regulations 
affecting their interests".  In the U.S. view, meaningful notice and comment periods provided a 
reasonable assurance that interested  parties would see the notice and ha ve adequate time to respond.  
The ability of individual and firms to comment on regulatory measures before implementation offered 
numerous benefits, including increased efficiency and greater credibility of the proposed measure.   
38. The delegation of the United States  said that prior comment also reduced uncertainty and 
discriminatory treatment in a given market as all pa rties were better informed through the ability to 
participate in the development of regulations.  In the U.S. experience, it allowed the opportunity to 
solicit views on proposed new and amended regulati ons from all interested parties, including both 
domestic and foreign services suppliers  operating or seeking to operate in the national market, as well 
as the general public, so that the provisions were de veloped under an informed  debate.  Established 
mechanisms to solicit and respond to public queries and comments helped make the process easier to 
administer.  Dismissing the need to consider and respond to comments on the proposed measures on 
the grounds of burdensome costs could deprive count ries of the benefits such procedures provided.  
After the initial start-up costs, the expense of such  procedures could be quite low.  New technologies, 
including the Internet, further reduced the financial burden associated with prior consultation systems.  
In the area of licensing procedures, the U.S. de legation had also made contributions concerning 
transparency.  The delegation reite rated their intention to make a submission, stating they would 
likely further elaborate on elements in the Examples  paper.  They noted that the U.S. delegation had 
already stated its views on many of the elements, e ither in the WPDR or at the bilateral level.   
39. The Chairperson  concluded by urging the United States to provide an electronic version of 
their intervention, and he looked forward to their submission.   S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 7 
 
 
Necessity Paper  
40. The Chairperson  then turned to the Secretariat Note  on necessity.  As Members were aware, 
the Note (circulated as document S/WPDR/W/27 dated 2 December), was a revised and updated 
version of the previous Secretariat paper on n ecessity (JOB No. 5929, dated 8 October 1999).  He 
then requested the Secretaria t to introduce their paper. 
41. A representative of the Secretariat  observed that, as the Working Party had requested, the 
Note expanded substantially upon the previ ous paper in terms of looking at existing WTO 
jurisprudence relating to necessity tests.  The No te was structured in a self-explanatory way.  The 
Secretariat representative strongly warned, however, that each WTO provision was to be interpreted 
in its proper context, and in light of the object a nd purpose of the relevant agreement, in spite of some 
similarities between the different provisions containi ng necessity tests.  In other words, it was not 
possible to automatically assume that an interpretati on of a necessity test in one agreement might be 
transferable to another agreement.   
42. The Secretariat  had tried to organize the paper in a manner useful to the Working Party, 
distinguishing between two broad types of provisions.  In some cases, necessity provisions were used 
to provide a discipline fo r invoking an exceptions  which, under certain conditions, allowed Members 
to deviate from their obligations under an agreem ent. Obvious examples were GATS Article XIV and 
GATT Article XX.  Some exceptions provisions ha d not yet been invoked, such as GATS Article 
XIV, and therefore there was no existing jurispruden ce.  Such provisions were to be distinguished 
from other necessity provisions, which establish obligations  such as those found in the TBT and SPS 
agreements. 
43. The Secretariat  had looked at the three main components of a necessity test: the policy 
objectives intended, the measure being used, and the necessity link between the objectives and the 
measure.  They had attempted to organize the No te on a thematic basis, rather than proceeding 
agreement by agreement, in order to help the Work ing Party with its analysis.  Policy objectives were 
the first theme, and the paper emphasized they we re never questioned under a necessity test in the 
WTO.  The second theme was the level of attainment, i.e. the level at which a the Member wished to 
fulfil a certain policy objective, and that was also never questioned.  Third was necessity itself and 
what it meant in WTO jurisprudence, i.e. how it was determined that a measures was necessary by 
means of examining whether an alternative measur e was reasonably available to the regulator and 
would have been less trade restrictive.  The fi nal theme was the burden of proof, which differed 
between the exceptions and obligations provisions.  In the paper's conclusions, the Secretariat had 
repeated the warning that each necessity test must be  examined in its own proper context, and in light 
of the object and purpose of the agreement concerne d.  Regarding reasonableness, there were some 
oblique references in the paper, i.e. with respect to a Panel or the Appellate Body examining whether 
an alternative measure which was less trade restric tive had been reasonably available to the regulator, 
but only in that context.   
44. The Chairperson  opened the floor for comments on the Secretariat paper.  Delegations 
thanked the Secretariat for the paper, and made the following preliminary comments. 
45. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said the Secretariat paper helped in reflecting on the 
role of necessity tests in any regulatory disciplines to  be developed, and especially in regard to the 
Accountancy Disciplines .  He took note of the Secretariat warnings, and said that would be adopted in 
his comments.  The paper was useful in the ongoing Article VI:4 deliberations, he stated, noting that 
Article VI:4(a-c) -- as currently incorporated in Article VI:5 -- was already in operation.  On the 
substance of the Note, the representative observe d that the notion of policy objectives seemed to 
explicitly or implicitly be contained in all the necessi ty provisions.  That was to be expected because, 
in assessing necessity, the only reasonable benchmark was the policy objective to be achieved.  He 
drew attention to the explicit reference to policy objectives in many of the exceptions provisions and, S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 8  
 
by contrast, the provision in the TBT agreement which referred to the notion of a non-exhaustive listing of legitimate objectives, akin  to what was already in the Accountancy Disciplines .  He asked if 
that had something to do with the different natu re of exception and the obligation provisions.   
46. The representative of Hong Kong, China
 noted that the Secretariat paper said the purpose of a 
necessity test was not to question the necessity of ob jectives, but rather the necessity of a measure to 
achieve its objectives.  Therefore, there was no partic ular reason to limit what might be considered as 
legitimate objectives.  Taking into account the ri ght of Member governments to regulate, it was 
reasonable that the notion of policy objective should be given a wide ambit.  He also noted that 
Japan's proposal referred to "national policy objectiv es", which were not defined and were within the 
rights of individual Members to determine, and om itted the notion of legitimacy.   Otherwise, as 
alluded to in the Secretariat Note, a panel might be in a position to assess the legitimacy of policy 
objectives.  Therefore, the reference to nationa l policy objectives might be a positive approach in 
achieving a balance between Members' rights to regulate and the necessity of a measure. 
47. On the level of attainment, the representative of Hong Kong, China  noted that the Secretariat 
paper observed that the level was not to be questi oned under a necessity test, and that it remained for 
the Member to decide.  He took note of the notion that, not withstanding the right of Members to 
choose, the level should be pre-defined by Members themselves under the respective policy 
objectives.  That was interesting, he stated, and the Working Party should reflect further in that regard 
in considering disciplines.  The representative was still studying the jurisprudence on necessity, but he 
wanted to draw attention to the notion of what a lternative measures might be reasonably available.  
The notion of reasonable availability was  interesting, and might have scope for wider application, 
because it encompassed the different regulatory cap acities of Members and could be useful in 
capturing what might be reasonably achieved under the elements of the draft disciplines that had already been proposed.  On Singapore's suggesti on regarding further work on reasonableness, he 
agreed it was only narrowly touched upon in the Note.  His delegation was interested in exploring the 
notion of reasonableness in developing disciplines, and therefore he supported the suggestion for the 
Secretariat to conduct further work.  On the issue of burden of proof, the representative took note of 
the statements in the Note on the difference betw een exception and obligation provisions, especially 
the observation that under obligations provisions the burden of proof would fall upon the complainant.  
48. The representative of the United States
 said her delegation would need to thoroughly examine 
the paper, and took note of the Secretariat warning.   She said when they had agreed to have an update 
of the previous paper, they had expected that it w ould be the same nature as the previous document.  
They did not accept that the paper was circulated as a restricted formal document, rather than as an 
informal document which was the status of the previ ous paper.  She asked whether the status of the 
document could still be made commensurate with th e original.  That was important for the U.S., 
because they had serious concerns which they had ra ised many times.  While they were happy with 
the Secretariat, they were concerned about the mi suse of certain notes which involved interpretations 
of law, or even factual accounts of certain treatments of law, being taken out of their original context. 
49. The representative of the United States  said the U.S. was making a general point regarding the 
treatment of notes involving interpretations.  As ma ny Members were aware, the U.S. delegation had 
not agreed to the horizontal negotiation of a necessity test.  They had agreed on a sectoral basis, such 
as in the case of the Accountancy Disciplines , and they were engaged in negotiations for disciplines 
with other delegations.   She noted that other Secr etariat Notes might have been restricted formal 
document, but in the present case the U.S. had wanted an update as an informal document.  They did 
not have any problem with havi ng expanded upon the original document, but wanted the paper to 
have same status at the paper it updated, due to the nature of the paper and the citation of panel cases, 
as well as the way the paper was organized.  The wa y that necessity was treated in Panel cases would 
be an issue for the U.S. to discuss later, as she wa s not sure if U.S. experts would necessarily agree 
with even the categorization of how to an alyze the treatment of necessity tests.   S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 9 
 
 
50. A representative of the Secretariat  said they wished to express their regret if the form of the 
paper had inadvertently caused a problem for any dele gation.  The Secretariat had not anticipated any 
problems about the form, since the paper went beyond  a simple update of the previous paper and had 
expanded it in a qualitatively different way.  Normally a Secretariat paper of that type was issued as a 
restricted formal document.  The representative was not  sure if it would be possible, or even desirable 
to withdraw and reissue the document as in info rmal paper.  The Secretariat had presumed the 
desirability of transparency in this  instance, particularly as necessity was an issue that attracted a high 
degree of interest outside the WTO.  Of course, th e Secretariat was in the hands of the Members about 
what they wished to do. 
51. The representative of the United States  accepted the Secretariat's explanation, however, she 
reiterated that her dele gation had concerns.  
52. The Chairperson  stated from his perspective that, although he noted the U.S. concern about 
the format in which the paper was circulated, he di d note as well that in regard to the concern over the 
adverse reaction to some of the quoted findings, th at they were in any case already made public in 
WTO reports.  He noted the concern that certain ci tations may have been taken out of context, but 
said that a perusal of the paper did not seem to indicate that interpretations were made by the 
Secretariat.  Secondly, he noted that Secretariat in their apology alluded to the inconvenience caused by the format, but not to an apology for the circul ation as a restricted formal document.  He did not 
recall that Members had agreed that the paper shoul d be circulated in any particular format.   
53. The delegation of the United States
 said they knew that many of the excerpts were in the 
public domain, but that the way the paper categorized the citations could be an issue in itself.  That, 
however, was a separate issue, except to note th at the Chairperson's view was not necessarily 
attributable to specific Members.  In their view, the Working Party had not needed to take a separate 
decision on the format, and all that had been agreed u pon was to update the original paper.  If the U.S. 
delegation had known the paper was to be circulated  as a restricted formal document, they probably 
would have requested some parameters to be set.  She emphasized that her comments had nothing to 
do with the U.S. views on the substance of the paper,  which they would come back to at a later time.  
In their view, the document involved an issue of precedent.   
54. The Chairperson  invited delegations, if they wished, to address the US proposal, as well as to 
offer comments on the Secretariat paper.   
55. The delegation of Switzerland , as the paper stated, considered that necessity tests were crucial 
to maintain a balance between the right to regulate a nd the need to avoid unduly restricting trade.  In 
that context, the experience gain ed in rulings on necessity tests in the SPS and TBT context could be 
invaluable in the shaping of definition of a nece ssity test in the GATS context.  They said that 
Secretariat paper provided very useful factual legal information on WTO jurisprudence.    
56. The delegation of India , regarding the objectives of a measures, highlighted that it was not the 
necessity of the policy objective that was questioned,  but the necessity of the measure to achieve the 
intended policy objective.  Like Hong Kong, China th ey wondered what that meant in the context of 
Article VI:4 disciplines, and how it would relate to  having a detailed list of policy objectives, versus 
not having a detailed list.   
57. The delegation of Brazil  agreed with Singapore's suggestion to have the Secretariat prepare a 
paper on reasonableness, especially as it was not dire ctly addressed in the necessity paper.  Not only 
the concept of reasonableness should be considered, they stated, but also the differences, and any 
possible overlap, between reasonableness and necessity.   
58. The representative of th e European Communities  said she shared the U.S. concerns on the 
status of the paper, particularly in regard to possible unintended prejudgement of any legal S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 10  
 
interpretation.  Her first reaction on substance was on the question of how necessity tests were 
interpreted in the paper.  In paragraph 4, for exam ple, the first sentence stated that "Necessity tests 
establish the WTO consistency of a measure based on whether the measure is "necessary" to achieve certain policy objectives".  The representative asked if that was really what the Working Party was 
dealing with in Article VI:4, which stated that  measures shall not be more trade restrictive than 
necessary.  That was an important distinction which, at  first reading, they had not found in the paper.  
Regarding the desirability of a paper on reasonablen ess, said the Working Party should first have 
substantial discussions, then consid ered whether to have a paper. 
59. The representative of Mexico
 said they had no position on the U.S. comments.  Like 
Switzerland, they believed the necessity of a me asure involving trade in services was extremely 
important and, consequently, the paper was important.  In paragra ph 51, he noted that a comparison 
was made with provisions in the TBT and SPS agre ements in terms of the adoption of technical 
regulations.  He wished to know on what basis th e comparison was made, since GATS Article VI:5(b) 
was a transitional provision.  Mexico's views diffe red substantially from the paper in regard to the 
view that international standards should be ma terial to the disciplines negotiated on domestic 
regulation.   
60. The delegation of Canada  underlined that Canada simply took the paper for what it was, i.e. a 
factual paper and important  background information to inform the Working Party discussions.  They 
regarded it as an attempt to draw concepts from ex isting agreements.  As the Secretariat had outlined 
very clearly, decisions on necessity were taken on  a case-by-case basis and in the context in which 
they were applied.  The Working Party could not , however, draw any specific conclusions regarding 
the relevance and applicability of those decisions to the work programme on Article VI:4. 
61. The representative of Columbia  said the paper would contribut e to a better understanding of 
the notion of necessity.  She believed that the intr oduction into the document of elements from the 
TBT and SPS agreements made it easier to better u nderstand the concept of necessity in the GATS.   
62. A representative of the Secretariat , regarding Mexico's comments, said he was not sure he 
fully understood, but that everyone's understanding  was that Article VI:5 was transitional.  The 
Secretariat intention in paragraph 51 was to try to point out how references to  international standards 
had been used in provisions related to necessity, a nd to contrast that with the only reference in the 
GATS to international standards.  The paragraph di d not suggest any similarity, and actually referred 
to the contrasts.  The only point of the paragraph wa s to point to the relevance in other disciplines of 
using international standards, and to indicate the appropriate reference in the GATS.    
63. The representative of Mexico , while noting the Article VI:5(b) reference in the GATS to 
international standards, said his point was that Ar ticle VI:4 disciplines should refer to the value of 
technical standards adopted in the Member country .  He asked what was the value of following 
international standards, and said that domest ic standards should be given greater weight. 
64. The representative of the Republic of Korea  emphasized that the necessity test under Article 
VI:4 was different from the necessity tests found in GATT Article  XX and GATS Article XIV.  He 
joined with the U.S. concerns.  
65. The representative of Chile  to some degree shared the EC concern that the definition in 
paragraph 4 was somewhat different from the way in which they defined necessity, and said that 
paragraph 5(c) had a much clearer definition.  Necessity tests had a context, the representative stated, and the definition in paragraph 4 was too general, and was not what the Working Party was looking 
for.  Nonetheless, it was a minor issue, the representa tive stated, and it was an excellent paper.     
66. The Chairperson
 said he wished to add his voice to those delegations thanking the Secretariat.   
From a personal standpoint, he had benefited from looking at the notions therein regarding the  S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 11 
 
 
necessity tests in various WTO agreements.  He said a dichotomy could be made between where 
necessity tests appeared in exceptions provisions, an d where they appeared in obligatory provisions.  
Exception provisions tended to refer to a finite set  of objectives, while obligation provisions tended to 
have a more open list.  Regarding the burden of proo f, he noted that if characterized as an exception, 
the burden of proof tended to be on the Member claiming the exception;  otherwise, if it was 
characterized as an obligatory provision the burden of proof tended to be on the complainant.  Those 
were his personal observations, however, based on th e provisions regarding goods.  He noted the 
warnings that interpretations developed in the cont ext of goods or in the context of a specific case or 
specific provisions could not be assume to be able to be transposed or adopted to the work on 
developing disciplines GATS Article VI:4.  His obser vations were based on hi s initial reading of the 
paper, he stated, and should not influenc e the interpretations of other Members. 
67. The delegation of the United States  said they took into account the various warnings, and 
emphasized that their comments on the entirety of th e paper would be forthcoming.  Although there 
were major differences between trade in goods a nd services, a particular treatment in goods might 
nonetheless still be applicable to services.   The poi nt was that the Working Party should not prejudge 
one way or another, and that the way that simila r analyses were treated could have implications.  
Perhaps an aspect of the treatment of necessity  in a particular goods case was worthy of some 
reflection in services, she stated, but it was necessar y to look at the specific case.  In fulfilling the 
mandate under Article VI:4, they would not want to prejudge how concepts were viewed in the 
services context.  The delegation reiterated that they  would like to find out how to treat the document, 
that they looked forward to coming back and maki ng further comments, and that they took note of the 
comments made by other delegations.  They recogni zed that the purpose of the examination was to aid 
the Working Party in its discussions on disciplin es under Article VI:4, without prejudging any 
Member's position on how to treat even the concept of necessity tests.    
68. The Chairperson  thanked the U.S. for their comments, and noted that Members' comments 
were preliminary, as well as his own observatio ns which were not intended as any type of 
interpretation.  He summarized by stating that  there was obviously a great deal of room for 
delegations to offer further substantive comments on paper, as many delegations had made remarks 
related only to their immediate areas of concern.  Consequently there was merit in reverting to the 
paper as an agenda item at the next meeting.  Tu rning to the U.S. request, he noted that some 
delegates had sympathy for the U.S. position, and ot hers had taken the view that the paper was only 
factual and offered "food for thought ".  He was not aware of any precedent for the request to take 
back the document, and suggested that Members could discuss the possibilities and that he could 
consult with interested delegations on an appropriate way forward.  Members  accepted the 
Chairperson's suggestions.   
2. Development of Disciplines for Professional Services 
Recognition Issues   
69. The Chairperson  recalled that delegations at the previous meeting had very focused 
discussions on the relationships between Articles VI :4, VI:6 and VII, based on the informal paper 
from India (JOB(03)/192, dated 29 September 2003).  He noted th e important distinction made 
between the issue of recognition and the possible ways of addressing it.  Both Members' comments and India's responses were recorded in the Report on the Meeting.  Regarding the implementation of 
GATS Article VI:6, he noted that New Zealand had suggested that delegations give presentations on 
their domestic procedures to verify the competence  of foreign professionals, and had volunteered to 
be first.  Since the last meeting, New Zealand had circulated an informal paper, JOB(03)/219, dated 3 
December 2003.  The Chairperson asked if Ne w Zealand wished to introduce their paper. 
70. The delegation of New Zealand
 apologized for the short notice for their paper, and realized 
Members' comments would be preliminary.  Thei r paper was self-explanatory, and the purpose was S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 12  
 
most particularly to further discussion of the issues raised in India's paper on the operationalization of 
Members' obligations under GATS Article VI:6.  The paper focused specifically on the way New Zealand met its VI:6 obligation in the engineering services sector.  As background, it noted that the chief regulatory objective was to protect the he alth and welfare of New Zealanders, through a 
combination of statutory requirements and self-regula tion, while also helping ensure that the sector 
was internationally competitive.  There was a hi gh level of foreign participation in the sector 
domestically, and exports were important.  New Zealand had removed the National Treatment 
residency limitation as part of their current GATS Offer, and the new registration process was based entirely on competency.   
71. The delegation of New Zealand
 noted that GATS obligations, including Article VI:6, were 
taken into account in the liberalization.  Most e ngineering services in New Zealand did not require 
professional registration, and most engineers working in New Zealand were not currently registered.  Instead, the system used was title protection for Ch artered Professional Engineers.  Foreign suppliers 
could compete without being locally registered, whic h was especially suitable for short-term suppliers 
under Modes 1 and 4.  The purpose of the registration system for Chartered Professional Engineers 
was to ensure a minimum level of quality, and a very limited range of services were reserved for such 
engineers as noted in paragraph 8 of the paper.  The registration system was implemented by the national professional body, the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand Incorporated (IPENZ), and the government had established a Char tered Professional Engineers Council to oversee 
the work and to ensure neutrality. 
72. The delegation of New Zealand
 stated that membership in the professional body was not a 
prerequisite for registration.  Competency standards were to be met by all applicants for registration, 
and were benchmarked against international best prac tice.  Key elements in meeting the Article VI:6 
obligations were specific provisions, as noted in para graphs 12 and 13 of the pa per, to allow engineers 
from other jurisdictions to have their qualificati ons assessed.  The registration authorities could carry 
out the assessment work, or another government bo dy if necessary.  Overseas professionals could 
present any evidence to support their application, an d the assessment process co uld also include work 
samples or a written test.  Certain practice fiel ds required demonstrati on of knowledge of New 
Zealand standards, especially seismic design for stru ctural engineering, and foreign engineers could 
work collaboratively with New Zealand engineer s to gain the required knowledge.  Regarding 
recognition arrangements, Section IX of the paper not ed  that applicants could gain credit toward 
registration through regional and international linka ges, including the APEC Engineer Register.  The 
professional body was also party to several recognition arrangements. 
73. The delegation of Australia  thanked New Zealand for the contribution their paper made to the 
discussion of recognition issues.  In Australia, th e recognition of professional qualifications varied 
considerably, depending on whether the sector was regulated by law, was self-regulating, or was 
unregulated.  Engineering was a self-regulated pr ofession in Australia, and there were no legally 
defined recognition processes.  Professional bodies su ch as Engineers Australia, however, had quite 
precise requirements for membership.  Generally sp eaking, Australian citizens and foreign nationals 
could use the title of Professional Engineer without being formally recognized.  Membership in the professional organizations was voluntary, and not re quired to practice.  For professionals wanting 
their foreign qualifications recognized, this could be done through the Washington Accord or the 
Sydney Accord, or through a process similar to th at of New Zealand.  For qualifications not 
recognized under the Washington or Sydney Accord s, there was a competency assessment process to 
establish equivalence with Australian requirements.   Australia also had an independent national 
professional engineers register, distinct from member ship in Engineers Australia, which had become 
the main vehicle for the registration of engineers in Australia.   
74. The delegation of Switzerland
, like New Zealand, believed effective implement of 
commitments could not be achieved without adeq uate procedures for the assessment of professional 
competency.  Switzerland's Offer in engineering ser vices was also far-reaching.  For public surveying  S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 13 
 
 
services, there was a Swiss license requirement based on passing an exam.  Requirements for the 
exam were included in the law, and were the only part of engineering services that was regulated.  
Applicants must provide proof of  academic qualifications, as well as pass the exam to assess technical 
knowledge, as well as knowledge of Swiss la nguages and culture.  The Chairperson  urged Australia 
and Switzerland to circulate their statements. 
75. The delegation of Mexico  said New Zealand's paper gave a clear picture of how Article VI:6 
was implemented.  On paragraph 12, they noted that , if qualifications could not be evaluation through 
IPENZ, assessment could be done through the New Z ealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).  The 
delegation asked for more information on how that  assessment would be carried out, and how the 
procedures were regulated as set out in Article VI:6.   
76. The representative of Columbia  stated that the New Zealand paper dealt with key issues, 
showing how they had operationalized Article VI :6 and had implemented their commitments.  She 
suggested that perhaps other Members would be encouraged to follow New Zealand's example and 
inform the Working Party of their procedures fo r assessment, thereby making it easier to establish 
multilateral mechanisms for the verification of competency.    
77. The delegation of Chile  said New Zealand's paper was very important, and allowed Members 
to focus the discussion on a conc rete case.  They asked what ac tivities might be undertaken by 
Chartered Professional Engineers, and what were the requirements for registration.  Noting the requirement mentioned in paragraph 10(c) that a code of ethics apply to Chartered Professional 
Engineers, the delegation asked if applicants n eeded to belong to a professional association with a 
such a code.    
78. The representative of Hong Kong, China
, on New Zealand's paper, was also interested in 
knowing what activities could only be done by Ch artered Professional Engineers, as well as whether 
the scope of their activities was governed by the Ch artered Professional Engineers Act or some other 
legislation.  On the relationship between the Ne w Zealand government and the registration authority 
IPENZ, he said it was not entirely clear in paragraph 10(c) if the relationship was clearly defined.  He 
wished to know if the profession was self-regulati ng, and asked both Australia  and New Zealand what 
they meant by that term, noting that somehow there must be an interaction between the government 
and professional bodies.  On the assessment on qualifica tions by IPENZ on the basis of international 
linkages, as noted in paragraph 12, the representativ e asked if it was based solely on linkages with 
professional bodies in other countries, or whether inte rnational standards were also taken into account. 
79. The delegation of the Republic of Korea , commenting on India's paper, noted there were 
overlaps between the categories of measures relati ng to domestic regulation and those relating to 
recognition, and said that many of the goals for addressing recognition issues could be achieved by 
enhancing transparency.  In that regard, they asked  what aspects of recognition should be incorporated 
into generally applicable disciplines.  On New Z ealand's paper, they said it was linked not only with 
Article VI:6, but was also a good example of how disci plines could be applied in a specific sector.  On 
paragraph 12 of the paper, the delegation asked th e basis for the competency standards for Chartered 
Professional Engineers.  They also had the same  question as Mexico and Hong Kong, China on the 
differences in the roles of IPENZ and the NZQA.  Regarding the MRAs mentioned by New Zealand, 
the delegation asked whether they were open to all Members and what criteria were used.  They also 
asked what was the difference between the issue of  MRAs and the issue of domestic recognition.   
80. The delegation of India  thanked New Zealand for partly op erationalizing what their paper had 
suggested.  On the New Zealand paper, they also asked for clarification on benchmarking in terms of 
international standards, as well as on the di fferences between IPENZ and NZQA procedures with 
respect to foreigners.  On competency assessment , the delegation asked if there was a difference 
between eligibility and entitlement, i.e. if an appl icant trying to prove the equivalence of their 
qualifications was in some sense an eligibility criteri a, and whether foreigners as an entitlement could S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 14  
 
provide services for non-reserved areas.  On recognition arrangements, including MRAs, the 
delegation noted those were considered in the New Zealand paper as one of the adequate procedures 
to assess the competency of professionals, and said more details on that aspect would be welcomed.  On the relationship between government legislativ e acts and professional bodies, they asked if there 
was an element of delegated authority.  Replying to Korea's question on India's paper, the delegation 
agreed that certain elements of regulatory disci plines would address elements of recognition, and 
noted the Secretariat Examples  paper, but said it was not the only aspect.  Improving transparency 
would help, but was not sufficient, and other elements  were needed as part of the larger issue of 
recognition. 
81. The delegation of Japan
 also wished to know the scope of the activities limited by Chartered 
Professional Engineers, and asked why only 3,000 out of 20,000 engineers were expected to be 
registered.  They asked if the reserved areas were  highly specialized, involved administrative burden, 
etc.  Regarding paragraph 12 on the equivalence of academic qualifications, they asked for more 
information on how NZQA would function in the ab sence of international linkages, as well as on the 
organizations recognized by IPENZ and the actua l scope of such arrangements.  Noting that 
registration was a pre-condition for providing certa in services, the delega tion asked for Members' 
views on whether it was a licensing procedure, i.e. as based on the EC definition, and said the answer 
could give the Working Party a better idea of the intended scope of any Article VI:4 disciplines.  
82. The representative of China  said the paper was helpful not only for discussing recognition 
issues, but also for understanding the engineering regi stration system in New Zealand.   He asked for 
clarification on paragraph 11 of the paper, enquiri ng whether IPENZ was a private or a governmental 
body. On paragraph 12, regarding the assessment  of an applicant academic qualifications for 
equivalence with a New Zealand four-year engin eering degree, the representative asked how IPENZ 
arranged for the assessment and recognition of ac ademic qualifications th rough its international 
linkages.  He also asked what types of organi zations were recognized by IPENZ for the assessment. 
83. The representative of New Zealand  thanked delegates for such substantive and comprehensive 
questions, and said she might have to answer some questions later.  On the questions by Mexico, 
China, Hong Kong, China, India and Korea on paragra ph 12, she said that perhaps those aspects could 
have been expressed more clearly in their paper.  Obviously a New Zealand degree was the standard by which foreign qualifications were assessed.  On the international linkages used by IPENZ to assess 
qualifications, her understanding was that it referre d mainly to IPENZ's participation in the 
Washington and Sydney Accords.  For applicants from countries with professional bodies not party to 
those agreements, the NZQA was a governmental body mandated to assess foreign qualifications.  
She would, however, consult with IPENZ to be sure .  On the reserved activities, some indication was 
given in paragraph 8.  The Char tered Professional Engineers Act did not stipulate the scope of the 
activities to be carried out by Chartered Professional Engineers, that was imposed by other Acts.  She 
said that 97 per cent of the engineering activities coul d be provided without registration;  the reserved 
activities were related to health and safet y and had an extremely narrow scope.   
84. On Chile's question, the representative of New Zealand
 said that applicants for registration 
applied as individuals, and there was no requirement for membership in a professional organization.  
On Hong Kong, China's question, she said that IPEN Z existed as a private association constituted by 
professionals, and traditionally had the role of  assessing competence and setting standards.  IPENZ 
was deemed the competent authority by the government, and designated as sole registration authority.  
On international standards, IPENZ did draw upon them as part of competency assessment.  On 
Korea's question regarding the basi s for the competency standards, she said they were derived from 
the relevant academic qualifications, and that the standards in their entirety could be seen on the 
IPENZ website (www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenz/).  On whet her the MRAs that IPENZ was a party to were 
open to the professional bodies of all Members, she was not familiar with the process, but said that the 
Washington Accord website and the OECD paper on MRAs (circulated earlier in the WPDR as 
JOB(03)/28) contained useful information.  On I ndia's question regarding eligibility and entitlement,  S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 15 
 
 
she said that applicants were entitled to practice,  but for that for reserved services equivalence was 
only one step in the registration process.  On Japan 's question, the reason for only 3,000 registrations 
was possibly because of the limited scope, and not because of administrative difficulty, but she would 
consult.  On China's question on paragraph 11, she said that IPENZ was a private body, and had 
designated authority from the government.  The repr esentative said her delegation would answer the 
other questions at the next meeting, and that it would be helpful to have them in writing. 
85. The Chairperson , mindful of the preliminary nature of the responses, suggested that Members 
revert to the document at the next meeting.  He encouraged other delegations to follow the lead of 
New Zealand, and to present their own perspective.  He concluded by noting that one of the crucial 
constraints of the WPDR work on recognition had been  the lack of information on specific details of 
the problems faced by suppliers.  Members  approved the Chairperson's suggestion.   
Consultations in Professional Services  
86. The Chairperson  offered the floor for any further discussion of the Synthesis  paper, earlier 
circulated as JOB/(02)/204/Rev.1, dated 21 February 2003.  He also asked if any delegations wished 
to update the Working Party on the status of thei r domestic consultations.  No additional comments 
were received.  Members  accepted the Chairperson's proposal to  retain the item on the agenda.   
87. The Chairperson  turned to the topic of the Secretar iat consultations with international 
professional organizations, noting that at the previous meeting, the Secretariat had presented a revised compilation of the comments received to date, circ ulated as JOB(03)/126/Rev.1, dated 22 September 
2003.  No additional comments were received.  Members
 again accepted the Chairperson's proposal to 
retain the item on the agenda.    
C. ORGANIZATION  OF THE  SEMINAR  ON DOMESTIC  REGULATION 
88. The Chairperson  said that the last major item on the agenda was the organization of the 
seminar on domestic regulation.  At the previous meeting, he had noted that financing became 
available for a seminar on 8-9 December, and a fax w as sent to delegations asking if there were any 
objections to those dates.  No objections were rece ived, but he subsequently was forced to report to 
the Special Session that the seminar needed to be postponed due to a lack of available hotel rooms. 
89.  At the September meeting, Members in informal  mode had discussed procedures for 
financing.  Since that time, however, the situati on had improved in that no special procedures were 
required, and the Secretariat would circulate the de tails of funding procedures after the date for the 
seminar had been agreed.  In that regard, and befo re moving to other issues, he suggested that the 
seminar might be held during the start of the second week of the next cluster, which was expected to 
be 9-10 February, with the next WPDR meeting he ld immediately after on 11 February.  He then 
opened the floor for comments. 
90. The delegation of the United States  noted that the dates of next cluster had not yet been 
approved in the CTS.  They would have a problem with the expected cluster dates, but not with 
holding the seminar in the second week.  A representative of the Secretariat  noted they had previously 
circulated notional dates for the next cluster, and that another possible cluster date might be from 23 
February to 5 March.  Members would address th e issue at the CTS meeting.  The Chairperson  said 
that it was his understanding that the seminar was pr eferably to be held on the second week of the 
cluster, which was for Members to determine.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that, like the 
U.S. delegation, they would have a problem with th e previously expected dates of the next cluster. 
91. The representative of Australia  asked if there was any addition information on seminar 
speakers, and said it would be desirable to have  such information as early as possible.   S/WPDR/M/24 
Page 16  
 
92. The Chairperson
 replied that the final list of speakers would depend on the seminar dates, and 
recalled that it was essentially up to Members to in struct the Secretariat which speakers to invite, 
including those from international professional organizations if Members so wished.  He recommended that the Secretariat be given some fl exibility and latitude in selecting speakers, and 
suggested that delegations nominate potential sp eakers.  One or two delegations had already 
expressed interest, he stated, noting that speaking slots would have to suit the outline as approved 
previously by the Working Party.   
D. DATE
 OF NEXT  MEETING   
93. The Chairperson  noted that the next item on the agenda was the date for the next meeting.  As 
discussed under the previous agenda item, the CTS w ould need to confirm the meeting dates of the 
seminar on domestic regulation.  W ith that understanding he suggested that the next meeting be held 
just after the workshop, i.e. on 3 March if the seminar was to be held on 1-2 March. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS 94. Under Other Business , the Chairperson
 noted he had earlier mentioned the listing of 
documents on the airgram for the WPDR, and suggested  that the Working Party might wish to ensure 
that the airgram did not become too crowded.  A pparently, the usual practice was for a new document 
to be listed only once on the airgram, even if that  document was the subject of continuing discussions.  
He asked if Members preferred to adopt that practise in  the future, or if they would rather continue to 
list documents on the airgram as long as they remain  under discussion, taking note of the comments 
made by Members earlier in the meeti ng on the listing of Singapore's paper. 
95. The delegation of the United States , regarding Singapore's paper, asked if it meant that the 
paper would not be retained on the airgram, but that if Members wished to raise further issues it could 
be put back on the agenda.  The Chairperson  replied that Singapore's paper would not be reinserted 
into the agenda, but only the issu es which might arise as a result of the Secretariat's search for further 
documents on the negotiating history of Article  VI:5.  The delegation of the United States  then 
enquired about the status of the Secretariat's wo rk, and whether it was still an on-going search.   
96. A representative of the Secretariat  said it might be helpful to distinguish between the listing of 
standing items or sub-items on the agenda, such as the discussion of concepts relating to the 
development of disciplines, and the issue of doc uments continuing to reappear on the airgram. 
Regarding the Secretariat research on the negotiating history, he was not prom ising anything, but was 
not sure if all the old files had been exhausted.  Just in case, he had said they would come back if the Secretariat had any information, but suggested there was no need to retain the paper on the agenda.   
97. The representative of Japan
 asked if the Chairperson's comment s referred to all the subsidiary 
bodies, and whether they also referred to the inclus ion of papers in the compilation of documents for 
the meeting.  Reference in the airgram was useful  as long as the paper was still under consideration, 
he stated, but there was no need to keep includi ng the same papers in the document pack.   
98. The Chairperson  said that Members could consider reta ining the citation in the airgram, but 
not retaining the same papers in document pack.  The delegation of the United States  asked if that 
would mean retaining all documents on the airgram.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Working 
Party could agree to delete the citation in the airg ram unless it was specifically agreed to revert to the 
document if discussions were ongoing.   
   S/WPDR/M/24 
 Page 17 
 
 
99. The representative of Canada  suggested that the Working Party revert to the existing practise.  
Living documents should stay on the agenda, he stat ed, and noted that the Chairperson could prepare 
an annotated agenda if he wished to emphasize particular documents.   
__________ 