RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/WPDR/M/16
8 July 2002
(02-3777)
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 4 AND 7 JUNE 2002
Note by the Secretariat1
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation (WPDR) held its sixteenth meeting on 4 and 7
June.  The agenda for the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/1808.  Sérgio Santos of Brazil
took his place as the new Chairperson.  Discussion throughout the meeting was based largely on aChairperson’s Note (JOB(02)/46, dated 29 May 2002).  To enable Members to complete discussions,
the meeting was continued on the morning of 7 June.
2. A representative of the Secretariat opened the meeting by informing Members that the current
Chairperson was unable to be present at the meeting.   It was noted that, as requested at the previous
WPDR meeting, the Working Party had invited th e OECD, on a non-attributable basis, to summarize
the results of their recent meeting of services experts held in Paris.  As also requested at the previous
meeting, the Summary  of Discussions  and the Checklist of Issues  had been collapsed into one
document, and circulated as Job No. (02)/03/Rev.1, dated 12 April 2002.  According to the usual
practice, a strikeout version of this Summary  was provided at the back of the room for everyone’s
reference.
(a) Appointment of the Chairperson
3. A representative of the Secretariat observed that consultations regarding the new Chairperson
of the WPDR had not yet been concluded at the tim e of the previous meeting of the Working Party.
Subsequently, on behalf of the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Services, the Secretariat
proposed that the Working Party elect Sérgio Santos of Brazil as the new Chairperson.  Mr. Sérgio
Santos was elected by acclamation and was invited to take his place as Chairperson.
4. The new Chairperson thanked Members for his appointment, and thanked his predecessor,
Scott Gallacher of New Zealand for his outstanding work as Chairperson.  Turning to the agenda, he
suggested that Members combine items (b) and (c ), in order to use the time most efficiently.
Members approved the Chairperson’s suggestion.
(b, c) Organization of Future Work / Development of Regulatory Disciplines under GATS
Article VI:4
5. The Chairperson noted that, at the last WPDR meeting, Members had an extensive discussion
regarding the organization of future work.  The previous Chairperson had summarized the discussion
by stating that Members were generally of the view that it was time to take a more focused approach,
i.e. to focus more on the regulatory barriers and issues that services suppliers actually faced.  The
WPDR’s work was an “educational process” for all Members, he had stated, noting that Members hadraised a number of specific questions that the WPDR might focus upon, including whether Article
VI:4 was the most appropriate means for dealing with certain regulatory measures.  The more focused
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.S/WPDR/M/16
Page 2
approach would be evolutionary, the Chairperson had stated, and the debate would therefore follow
on that basis.
6. The Chairperson then referred to the first part of his Note, i.e. paras 2 to 5, concerning the
examination of actual regulatory measures.  As noted in para 3, he proposed that Members took into
account three basic elements in proceeding.  The first element was an examination of the measures inorder to clarify which ones could fall within the scope of Article VI:4 as opposed to other provisions
of the GATS, for example, Articles XVI and/or XVII.  There were three questions in his Note that
could be considered to this effect.  The objective, the stated, was not to decide, or to have a
determination of, which were Article VI:4 measures .  Instead, it was only to have a notion of which
examples could be captured by Article VI, and esp ecially VI:4, so that Members could then, under the
second element, discuss these examples on the basis of the issues raised in the Checklist .
7. The third element of the proposed course of action concerned timeframes and objectives, the
Chairperson stated.  He noted that, at the last meeting, some Members had indicated the desirability of
establishing timeframes for the work, bearing in mind paragraph 7 of the Guidelines and Procedures
for the Negotiations on Trade in Services , i.e. that “Members shall aim to complete negotiations under
Article VI:4 (…) prior to the conclusion of negotia tions on specific commitments”, as well as the
overall context of the Doha Development Agenda, in particular as regarded the deadline of 1 January2005 for the specific commitments negotiations and the whole single undertaking.
8. The Chairperson suggested that Members consider March 2003 as the initial benchmark.  The
objective could be to arrive at some common elements that could form the basis, or indicate the
general shape, of possible future disciplines.  Ideally, these common elements could be informed by
preliminary answers to the various questions raised in the Checklist , which could form the basis for an
informed decision by Members on the desirability of adopting any disciplines.  He emphasized that, in
devising his suggestions, he had borne in mind his predecessor’s statement that the exercise would be
mostly of an educative nature.  It was important to increase the level of understanding of all Members,
he stated, particularly developing and least developed.
9. The representative of Australia, supported the three-step approach on disciplines and the
timetable on professional services.  Para 3 in the Chair’s Note offered a good framework, she stated,
Australia also endorsed para 4 on the benchmark, the framework in para 7, and the call in para 8 for a
listing of documents.
10. The representative of Japan said the framework was a reasonable way to go forward.  Japan
had previously expressed the view that Members should work on the basis of concrete measures.  The
March 2003 benchmark was acceptable, he stated, and Japan would consider submitting further
examples.  The analysis in para 7 and other parts of the Hong Kong, China paper was very relevant,the representative stated.  He also emphasized the relevance of existing instruments, including the
accountancy disciplines, and said it would be useful to cross-refer in discussions between the
examples and the accountancy disciplines.
11. The representative of Uruguay supported the suggestions in the Chairperson’s Note, and
observed that Uruguay had earlier mentioned the mandate in para 7 of the negotiating guidelines, as
confirmed in para 15 of the Doha declaration.  It was essential to take best advantage of the time
between now and the January 2005 deadline, he stated, and therefore Members perhaps should try to
speed up pace of work.
12. The delegation of Canada said they had no objections to either the framework or methodology
proposed in the Chair’s Note, and noted that Canada had always been very supportive of the analysis
of regulatory examples as a means of broadening understanding of Article VI:4.  Regarding the
benchmarks, the delegation hoped that understanding could be achieved by March 2003, so thatS/WPDR/M/16
Page 3
Members could then undertake the creation of any necessary disciplines.  Canada was still reviewing
legislation, and had just completed an internal regulatory analysis, examining over 400 measures.
13. The representative of the European Communities was very supportive of the Chair’s Note,
and said it reflected well the discussions in previous meetings.  The three-step approach was what was
needed, and she appreciated the Chairperson’s clarification that the objective was not to determine afinal list of Article VI:4 measures.  It was also good to remind Members of the timeframe. The
representative fully agreed with the educational nature of the process, but said Members should not
lose sight of the need to come up with concrete results.
14. The representative of Thailand expressed some reservations.  She had no objection to the
approach, and agreed on the need for a benchmark, but said the proposed date of March 2003 was too
early.  More time was needed for developing country contributions, she stated.  She noted that her
country had already made contributions in all aspects of the WPDR work, and said Thailand did notwish to obstruct the process.
15. The Chairperson emphasized that any benchmark would be on a best-endeavour basis, and
would not prejudice in any way the final results of negotiations.
16. The representative of Switzerland agreed with the proposals in paras 3, 4, 7 and 8 of the
Chair’s Note, but noted that the deadline was tight.  On para 7c, he believed that an examination of
the Synthesis  paper ( Synthesis of Results to Date of the Domestic Consultations in Professional
Services (Fifth Draft) , JOB(01)/162 dated 27 November 2001) might help those Members who had
not yet concluded their domestic consultations.
17. The representative of Peru, agreed with the approach in the Chair’s Note, including the
emphasis on the educational process.  Members should also take into consideration the overall
benchmarks and deadlines, and organize the work accordingly, she stated.  On para 7(b), regarding
Secretariat consultations, the representative asked for more information on the actual scope of such
consultations, e.g. whether the objective was to create a paper, etc.  The suggested documents list in
para 8 was an excellent initiative, she stated, and asked whether it might include a summary of
Members’ comments from recent meetings.  The Chairperson noted that professional services would
be discussed later, and asked if discussion of Peru’s first question could be delayed until this time.
18. The representative of Hong Kong, China support ed the suggestions made in the Chairperson’s
Note, especially the elements in para 3, as well as paras 4 and 5.  Regarding the benchmarks, the
timeframe was reasonable, he stated, and noted it was on a best-endeavour basis.  He stressed that the
purpose of a benchmark was to help the Working Party to focus its work, and said he wished to avoid
any lengthy procedural debates.
19. The representative of Mexico associated his delegation with the comments by Australia,
Uruguay, Canada, and others.  The methodology s hould help Members to respect the benchmarks, he
stated, emphasizing that they were a fundamental aspect of the Chair’s Note.  On professional
services, Mexico believed that the benchmark did not put a limit on any delegation to discuss their
domestic consultations at any time.  Moreover, examination of the Synthesis  paper could also benefit
the domestic consultations.  The representative therefore asked for some flexibility from otherMembers, in order that the WPDR work could be speeded up.
20. The Chairperson stated that Mexico’s comments on the benchmark for professional services
were completely correct.
21. The representative of Korea stated they were also pushing hard to obtain examples, and would
submit a paper in due course.  On the Chair’s Note, Korea welcomed the suggested approaches, andS/WPDR/M/16
Page 4
fully agreed on the need to discuss actual examples .  Korea also agreed with the March 2003 initial
benchmark.
22. The representative of Malaysia stated that his delegation had no problem with the proposed
organization of work, but they did share Thailand’s concerns.  On para 7, he shared Mexico’s point.
23. The representative of India agreed, in principle with para 3 of the Chair’s Note.  On the
March 2003 benchmark, he said it was perhaps too ambitious.
24. The representative of Chile supported the Chair’s Note regarding the three questions in para
3.  She hoped, in addition to an educational process, for concrete results as well.  Defining the target
date was important, she stated, and Chile was prepared to comply with the benchmark.
25. The representative of Venezuela said that the benchmark was fine, and that para 5 was very
important, i.e. the final objective was to work out any necessary disciplines.  The objective was a
well-founded decision, and therefore the educational process was important.  Regarding theeducational aspect, the representative suggested holding a seminar, to include participation by
regulators.  She also supported the proposed documents list.
26. The Chairperson agreed that the objective was to increase the level of understanding of all
Members, including the regulators.  On the suggested seminar, it was a useful idea, he stated.
27. The representative of Cuba agreed in general with para 3 of the Chair’s Note.  The para 5
reference on the educational aspect was very important, the representative stated, and therefore March
2003 might be premature.
28. The representative of the United States stated that paras 3 to 5 of the Chair’s Note proposed a
practical and workable approach.  The benchmarks we re flexible, but useful, he stated, and he looked
forward to further work based on Members’ contributions based on their experiences.  Para 5 oneducation was also the right approach.  One way to involve regulators, in addition to a possible
Geneva-based symposium, was through the compilation of measures in the Examples  paper
(Examples of Measures to be Addressed by Disciplines under GATS Article VI:4, JOB(02)/20 dated 7
March 2002), he stated, which he expected would be revised to include Thailand’s contributions.  The
representative noted that the Examples paper could also be useful for wider discussions domestically
and, in this regard, he wished to return later to the issue of documents derestriction.  Concerning
professional services, he stated that significant work was occurring outside the WTO within the
professions, and the WPDR was apparently not keep ing pace.  The Working Party needed to get a
better understanding of what the professions were already doing, he stated.
29. The Chairperson asked the U.S. delegation about the submission of Hong Kong, China.  The
representative of the United States replied that it was his delegation’s understanding that the
Secretariat compilation would provide a list of regulatory examples from Members.  The Chairperson
asked Members to consider the U.S. proposal, and noted that he would take up the topic of documents
derestriction under other business.
30. The delegation of New Zealand supported the suggestions in the Chair’s Note on
organization, and welcomed the suggestion in para 3 that delegations provide additional specific
examples.  New Zealand hoped to also submit exam ples. The delegation emphasized that it would be
an important year for the WPDR.
31. The representative of Indonesia welcomed the Chair’s Note.  His delegation had no problems
with the structure, except the benchmarks, and he  associated his delegation’s position with those of
Malaysia and Thailand.  Indonesia would try to meet the benchmarks, he stated, but he asked for
flexibility for developing countries.  He looked forward to more examples of regulatory barriersS/WPDR/M/16
Page 5
encountered by services suppliers, especially from developing countries.  The representative agreed
with Venezuela on holding a seminar involving regulators.
32. The representative of Mauritius stated that the Working Party needed to heed the reservations
expressed on deadlines.  The Chair’s Note was very useful, he stated, and some of the points made in
Hong Kong, China’s paper confirmed what was stated in Thailand’s paper.  Members might benefitfrom adding some more elements to the work process, including administrative procedures and intra-
country harmonization of regulations, equivalence, mutual recognition agreements, exceptions and
prudential regulations, and transparency issues.  These broad themes were clear in both Thailand’s
and Hong Kong, China’s papers, he stated.
33. The representative of China said it was important to have multilateral disciplines on licensing
and qualifications, and therefore China could go along with the three-step process suggested in the
Chair’s Note.  On para 7, China needed more time to consider.  On para 8, China supported a listing.The Chairperson asked delegations to comment on para 8 and the suggested listing of documents.
34. The representative of Argentina supported the methodology in the Chair’s Note.  On para 5,
regarding the educational aspect, he highlighted the importance of Thailand’s and Hong Kong,
China’s papers.  He fully supported the timeframes in the Note, and emphasized their flexibility.  All
Members wanted to make progress on multilateral aspects, he noted, stating that progress in thisregard would also facilitate progress in bilateral negotiations.
35. The representative of Chinese Taipei supported the benchmarks and the timetable proposed in
the Chair’s Note, and also echoed China’s comments.   His delegation was most concerned about the
professional services track, and he asked for further details on procedures and the current status of
domestic consultations.  On paras 7a & b, the sequence was acceptable.  The representative asked thecriteria used for choosing international organiza tions, and whether it conformed with Article VI:5b.
He also asked whether there would be flexibility for new Members in meeting the deadlines.
36. The representative of Colombia supported the organization of work as proposed in the Chair’s
Note.  Para 3 was a good approach, she stated.  On benchmarks, she agreed it was important to
establish clear objectives, together with the timetable.  She supported para 8 on a listing, as well asVenezuela on the idea of holding a seminar.
37. The representative of Hong Kong, China supported the inclusion of Thailand’s paper in the
Examples , and clarified that his delegation’s paper was drawn from Member’s submissions that
identified issues of regulatory importance.  In the Minutes, it was stated that any Member could raise
examples from any sources, he observed, and he noted that the submission of further examples was
also encouraged in the Chair’s Note.  The representative supported para 7 on professional services in
the Chair’s Note, and para 8 on a listing.
38. The Chairperson stated that he was impressed by the number of interventions.  He summed up
by saying there was general support for the proposed methodology, as outlined in (i) and (ii) of para 3.
However, on (iii), some delegations had expressed concern with the suggested benchmark.  On a
personal basis, he noted that he had tried to be as cautious and careful as possible on the benchmark.
He emphasized that the benchmark was on a best-end eavour basis, which did not in any way prejudge
the results of the process, and was therefore flexible.
39. Regarding objectives, the Chairperson noted there was general support for conducting
discussions on the basis of concrete measures.  Some Members had made the point, however, that the
Working Party should not lose sight of the mandate contained the Article VI:4, and the need to
ultimately achieve results.  In his Note, he had stated that, based on discussions, Members could thentake a decision on the adoption of any disciplines.  The discussions were the initial step, he stated.
There was no consensus on a benchmark, and therefore he proposed to hold consultations.  The otherS/WPDR/M/16
Page 6
two elements were acceptable, he noted, and the WPDR could therefore proceed with discussions.
Members agreed with the Chairperson’s suggestions.
Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Disciplines
40. Regarding the Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Disciplines , the
Chairperson noted that the previous Chairperson had summarized the discussions at the last formal
meeting by stating that Members had already made an effort to be more focused.  For example, a
number of delegations had raised specific issues regarding para 5 of his Chairperson’s Note,
concerning visa procedures.  A few delegations had raised the issue of S&D treatment, both in terms
of administrative burden and regulatory disciplines in general, as well as the question of the
applicability of horizontal disciplines, and the issue of federal/sub-federal measures.
41. The Chairperson observed that, since the previous meeting, papers had been submitted by two
delegations.  The first was a paper by Thailand, circulated as Job (02)/48, dated 30 May.  The second
was a paper from Hong Kong, circulated as Job (02)/50, dated 31 May.  He then opened the floor for
those delegations to introduce their papers.
42. The representative of Thailand introduced her delegation’s paper, saying that it was quite
straightforward, and drawn from the private sector  and government commercial offices.  The paper
pointed to regulatory barriers in developed countries as well as developing, and in many sectors, andconfirmed Thailand’s belief that horizontal disciplines were desirable.  Thailand believed that the
examples given were probably Article VI:4 measures.  The representative noted that the last item in
section 4, residency requirements, also applied to section 1.  Thailand had filtered the measures, but
was not completely sure all were covered under Article VI:4.
43. The representative of Hong Kong, China introduced  his delegation’s paper, noting that he had
already explained the background.  His government might not have filtered the measures as much as
was possible, he stated, because they wished to give Members the benefit of the doubt.  In addition to
raising regulatory issues, the paper indicated Members’ suggested responses, as included in their
proposals.  Many of the responses were relevant to the WPDR, he stated.  Members also might wish
to further consider several issues raised in the paper, as well as the three questions posed in paras 6 &7 regarding scope, the representative stated, including the question of whether administrative
measures for scheduled limitations would fall within Article VI:4.
44. The Chairperson opened the floor for comments, noting that a number of delegations had
already made preliminary comments on the two new papers, and thanked Thailand and Hong Kong,
China for submitting concrete regulatory examples.  He observed that one delegation had raised the
question of having the Secretariat incorporate Thailand’s contributions into the Examples  paper, and
asked Members to comment on whether it was better to have a single document.  It was clear that anyMember could draw from any source when making contributions, he stated.
45. The representative of the United States clarified that it was not the U.S.’s idea to update the
Examples  paper, but rather that it had been a working assumption for some time.  Also, he stated that
his delegation’s assumption was that the primary purpose of the Examples  paper was to collect
Member’s experiences, specifically those of the private sector.  Therefore, he had highlightedThailand’s paper.  It seemed appropriate that the decision to include specific measures should be by
Members, he stated.  The Chairperson asked Members for their views, including suggestions of
possible alternatives regarding the Examples  paper.
46. The representative of Chile stated that both papers should be included in the update.  For
example, Chile’s examples from their negotiating proposal came from the private sector.  Countries
should also reply to the questions raised in Hong Kong, China’s paper, she stated.  She clarified that
Chile’s comments on licensing in their proposal had been raised in a general manner.  Of the twoS/WPDR/M/16
Page 7
columns in appendix of the Hong Kong, China paper, the responses did not always match the issues,
she stated, and therefore Members should read the document very carefully.  Regarding Thailand’s
paper, she was not sure that all the measures were related to domestic regulation.  She also noted that
subjective judgements were included when measures were described, for example the use of such
terms as “excessive” and “more burdensome than necessary”.
47. The representative of Uruguay commented on Hong Kong, China’s paper, saying that the title
of Part 3 should refer to “necessary disciplines”.  On para 7, he believed the arguments presented were
limited, as the transparency requirements of Article III:3 were applicable only to specific
commitments.  Regarding arbitrary administration, Uruguay believed the issue was to discuss
Member’s GATS obligations.  In this regard, Urugua y believed that Article VI:4  referred to situations
where specific commitments had been assumed, as strengthened by the example of the accountancy
disciplines.  On para 13, Uruguay believed it might be useful to discuss, but that it exceeded theWPDR mandate, and therefore the Special Session would be a better forum.  On updating the
Examples  paper, Uruguay felt it should include all examples provided by Members, but not proposed
responses, while emphasizing it did not in any way prejudice negotiations.
48. The representative of the European Communitie s stated they were not yet ready to comment
on substance.  On updating the Examples paper, she associated her delegation with previous speakers,
stating that a compromise might be to add the caveat suggested by Uruguay, and restrict the paper to
examples and not the responses.
49. The Chairperson, noted that the Secretariat paper was a compilation of examples, and not of
proposed solutions.  In that regard, the Secretariat would be asked to include only the examples from
the two submissions.
50. The representative of Canada agreed with the United States that examples should be brought
forward by Members.  He also noted the caveat in para three of the Examples  paper regarding the
work of the Secretariat, and asked whether the Secretariat should provisionally filter the updated
examples as well, or whether this should be done by Members.  On para 8, he stated that the WPPS
documents were also relevant, and should be included in the listing.  Like Uruguay, Canada also sawthe Article VI:4 mandate as very narrow.
51. The Chairperson said it was very important that  the Secretariat had the help of Members in
identification of examples, and noted that the Secretariat had indicated in the Examples  paper where
specific judgements might be required by Members.  On para 8, he agreed that both formal and
informal WPPS documents could be included in the listing.  Members then approved the listing of
documents.  The representative of China clarified that they wished to have all WPPS and WPDR
documents listed, not only those pertaining to regulatory examples.  The Chairperson  confirmed the
request.
52. The representative of Venezuela agreed that the Examples  paper should be updated, without
including proposed solutions.  The work of the Secretariat typically required a certain degree of
judgement, she stated, and the most important aspect was to ensure that the paper reflected indicative
examples.  The representative noted that the final decisions were up to Members, who should beconstantly aware of the WPDR mandate during the filtering process.  She also suggested that the
examination of the Examples paper be made a specific item on the agenda.  She agreed with Chile that
many examples were subjective, noting it was difficult to determine what was “excessive”, etc., and
stated that this issue would need to be addressed.
53. The Chairperson stated that the objective of updating the Examples  paper was, in his view, to
use it as the basis for starting Members’ discussions.  Members could also decide whether a separate
agenda item was required.S/WPDR/M/16
Page 8
54. The Secretariat, responding to the earlier question on para 7 of the Chair’s Note concerning
the criteria used for choosing international organizations, confirmed that any consultations would be
based on the requirements specified in the footnote to Article VI:5b, i.e. organizations open to at least
all Members of the WTO.  In addition, the WPDR had previously decided to further restrict the
Secretariat consultations to organizations suggested by Members.  This listing (contained in Job(01)/98, dated 28 June 2001) was at any time open to further additions from Members.
55. The Chairperson, noting the time restrictions, asked whether Members wished to continue the
meeting later in the week.  Members agreed to continue the meeting, but to postpone the OECD
presentation until the July meeting.
Development of Disciplines for Professional Services
56. Upon resuming the meeting on 7 June, the Chairperson apologized for needing to continue.
Regarding professional services, he noted that the previous Chairperson had stated that the goal of the
earlier discussions under this sub-item had been to structure the work and set the road ahead. The
questions of new timeframes and the relationship with international organizations were issues that
needed to be addressed.
57. The Chairperson stated that, in his Note, he had suggested the following ideas for
consideration:  First, that a new best-endeavour deadline, which could be 31 November 2002, be
established for the conclusion of domestic consultations.  He clarified that “best endeavours” meant
that the Working Party would also discuss new contributions at any time after that date.  Second, after
that date, the Secretariat would proceed with their consultations with international professional
associations.  Third, the Working Party in the meantime could conduct an initial examination of the
Synthesis  paper.  Despite the well-known limitations of that document, resulting from the low level of
contributions to date, it could be useful at least to help guide the consultations of those Members that
had not yet reported, he stated.
58. The Chairperson further noted that there was always the possibility of discussing any issues
related to the Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector  (S/L/64 dated 17
December 1998), as well as the Guidelines for Mutual Recognition Agreements or Arrangements  in
the Accountancy Sector  (S/L/38 dated 28 May 1997) that Members might find relevant for the work
on professional services.  It was important to remember, he stated, that the accountancy disciplines
would come into force following the current servic es negotiations.  He then opened the floor for
comments by Members, noting that a number of delegations had already made comments in the
previous discussions on 4 June.
59. The representative of Thailand, returning to the previous discussions, thanked Canada and
Chile for their initial remarks.  She agreed that va lue judgements and subjectivity were present in the
examples, and noted that Thailand had tried to give exact examples.  The representative asked
Members to give actual details, rather than value judgements such as “excessive”.  She noted that in
some cases it was difficult to classify specific measures, e.g. licensing vs. qualification measures.
Regarding professional services, she said the deadline might be early, but noted that it was only
indicative.  Thailand was also quite interested in  examining the accountancy disciplines, she stated,
emphasizing that Thailand was not seeking revisions, but instead examining their applicability to
other professions.
60. The Chairperson noted that the previous Chairperson had suggested examining the
accountancy disciplines para by para, but there had been no consensus.  As stated in para 7(c) of his
Note, however, any Member could bring up any questions on their own initiative.S/WPDR/M/16
Page 9
61.  The representative of Poland supported the Chairperson’s proposal in para 7 to establish a
new best-endeavour deadline, as well as the points in (b) and (c).  He noted that the deadline should
be read as 30 November.  The Chairperson agreed.
62. The representative of Venezuela said it was important to first analyze why there were so few
reports of consultations.  She questioned whether the method was “user-friendly”, stating that perhaps
associations did not understand what was involved.  The Chairperson or the Secretariat should find
out whether it was possible to draft a new questionnaire, she stated.
63. The Chairperson stated that one of his intentions in proposing the deadline was that, in the
meantime, Members could look at what was already contained in the Synthesis  paper, giving an
opportunity for an exchanges of views to assist  those Members who had not yet completed their
consultations.  He then asked Members for their views on whether the Chairman or the Secretariat
should draft a new questionnaire, noting that it would be an indicative guideline rather than amandatory formula for consultations.
64. The representative of Japan supported the work program in para 7, and said that a best-
endeavour deadline was useful.  He had no objection to  a new questionnaire, but stated that it could be
part of the discussions under 7(c).   Regarding para  7(b), he stated that Members could already begin
discussing procedures for consulting international organizations.  Like Thailand, Japan was interestedin looking at the relevance of the accountancy disciplines, by examining the Synthesis  paper or
otherwise.  The Chairperson agreed that, in the discussions under para 7(c), Members could begin to
examine procedures for consulting international organizations.
65. The representative of the European Communities said there were a number of reasons for the
difficulties with domestic consultations, the first being the reference to accountancy.  She noted that
when India consulted domestically on the applicability of the accountancy disciplines to other
professions, they removed the accountancy references and submitted a generic text.  Another reason
was that some professions thought the accountancy disciplines were too general and limited.  Perhaps
it was necessary to explain that the goal was to produce disciplines, not harmonization across
professions, she stated.  A further reason was that many professions preferred to focus on marketaccess and national treatment issues, the representative stated.  She noted that, with the current
negotiations, there might be great opportunities for synergy with regulatory issues.  She encouraged
Members to begin preparing for consultations with international organizations, noting that it might
stimulate the participation of domestic professional associations.
66. The representative of Cuba said the Chair’s Note was useful, and that they would have a final
position later.  More progress should be made in domestic consultations first, she stated, noting that
Cuba was now consulting.  Venezuela’s comments i ndicated that a new approach might be needed,
and therefore the deadline in 7(b) was perhaps premature.  Cuba, however, was flexible in terms of
what the WPDR might decide.  On 7(c), she agreed that Members should not re-examine the
accountancy disciplines.
67. The Chairperson clarified that the purpose of the deadline was to set a timeframe for initiating
consultations with international professional organizations, and that Members could always present
the results of domestic consultations after that date.  As Members were aware, the previous deadline
expired in March 2000.  A few delegations had earlier pointed out that the international associations
were paying close attention to the work of the WPDR, the Chairperson stated, and some associations
were undertaking work directly related to WPDR discussions.  He had this fact in mind when
proposing the deadline, noting that the WPDR work di rectly affected those associations, and that they
wished to interact with the WPDR and to contribute.
68. The representative of Canada was generally supportive of the work program outlined in
para 7, including the indicative deadline.  Multiple  approaches were needed to encourage responses,S/WPDR/M/16
Page 10
he stated, including personal visits and regular updates of progress in Geneva.  Nonetheless it was a
difficult process, he stated.  The representative agreed with the EC on how consultations with
international associations might help promote domestic consultations.
69. The Chairperson clarified that there was actually no previous Secretariat questionnaire.
Instead, there were two informal papers from Hong Kong, China, the first Job 2784, dated 12 May
1999, and the second Job 3547, dated 21 June 1999, with suggestions on procedures for domestic
consultations.
70. The representative of India enquired whether it might be possible to push back the deadline,
until possibly March 2003.  Despite the previous WPDR discussions, India still had some concerns
about the Secretariat consultations with international organizations, and wished to further reflect on
what was intended.  The representative said that India had no problems with the suggestions in para
7(c), provided it was clearly understood that no conclusive lessons were intended to be drawn fromthe initial examination of the Synthesis paper.
71. The Chairperson agreed that the issue of consultations with international professional
associations had already been extensively discussed, and encouraged further contributions.  He
confirmed that the purpose of the Synthesis  discussion was not to arrive at any conclusions, but to
provide clarification, and to help assist Member’s domestic consultations.
72. The representative of Mauritius thanked the Chairperson for his clarifications.  He recalled his
previous intervention on 4 June, and asked that his suggestions for organizing the work be considered.
Members should also focus on what was applicable from the accountancy disciplines, he stated.
Regarding deadlines, he emphasized that Members needed a clear program of work.  The Chairperson
asked whether Mauritius was proposing to merge the two tracks into a single process.  The
representative of Mauritius replied that he believed the issues were not overlapping, and could be
discussed on a stand-alone basis.
73. The representative of Uruguay said that Uruguay supported the proposals in para 7.  He
emphasized that delegations had agreed to para 7 in the Guidelines, as well to the Doha deadline.  As
a small delegation, his delegation was well aware of the difficulties faced regarding domesticconsultations, but Members must ask themselves when  they would be in a position to move forward.
Otherwise, there might not be enough time for analysis, he stated, and emphasis could shift to sectoral
proposals.  He emphasized that Uruguay preferred to move forward on horizontal discussions.  He
then suggested that the Chairperson and the Secretariat prepare a brief Note giving a more “user-
friendly” approach, including a brief introduction to the VI:4 mandate, an explanation of what was
being negotiated, references to para 7 of the Guidelines and para 15 of the Doha declaration, and a
best-endeavours deadline.  The representative believed that consultations with internationalprofessional associations could be beneficial and, in any case, would be for information only and not
prejudice negotiations.
74. The Chairperson asked Members to consider Uruguay’s suggestion, saying it was very
interesting.  He emphasized that his priority was to increase the level of understanding of all
Members, especially developing and least-developed ones, on the issues under discussion.
75. The representative of Djibouti noted that many delegations had asked why there were so few
reports on domestic consultations.  Members needed to examine the problem, he stated, and to see
how it might be solved.  Perhaps people did not understand the economic and political implications of
the issues concerned, the representative noted, emphasizing that it was important to understand what
were the difficulties domestically.
76. The representative of Australia, regarding the issue of questionnaires, observed that most
people did not have time to answer them, or did not understand the issues concerned.  Therefore, aS/WPDR/M/16
Page 11
low response rate was to be expected, she stated.  The representative also announced the holding of an
architect’s symposium on 18 July in Room D, sponsored by the Union Internationale des Architectes
(UIA), to introduce their Accord on Recommende d International Standards of Professionalism in
Architectural Practice, focusing on standards and equivalence.
77. The Chairperson summarized the discussion by noting there was no consensus regarding a
deadline.  There was agreement on other aspects, how ever, including initiating an examination of the
Synthesis  paper, discussing procedures for consultations with international professional organizations,
and discussing any issues raised by Members regarding the accountancy disciplines.  Members also
approved the proposal by Uruguay on a Note by the Chairperson and the Secretariat for delegations touse as tool for their domestic consultations.
(c) Date of Next Meeting
78. The Chairperson noted that the next item on the agenda was the date for the next meeting.  In
accordance with the practice of grouping meetings of subsidiary bodies close to meetings of the
Council, he suggested that the next meeting be held during the week just before the next CTS and
Special Session meetings, i.e. the week beginning 15 July.  Members approved the Chairperson’s
suggestion.
(d) Other Business
79. The Chairperson reminded Members that the issue of the derestriction of informal WPDR
documents had been raised at the previous meeting, noting there had been no consensus.  Members
might find it useful to bear in mind the 16 May 2002 General Council decision on derestricion
(WT/L/452) he stated, noting, however, that it did not apply to informal documents.
80. The representative of Canada recalled that one of the themes prompting the previous
Chairperson’s intervention at the last meeting was the need to provide information on the WPDR to a
wider community.  Canada believed this would be useful, he stated, noting that documents such as the
paper suggested by Uruguay could help better inform the public on the issues.
81. The Chairperson agreed that the reason for the previous Chairperson’s proposal was to
contribute to increasing public knowledge of the work of the WPDR.   He suggested that Members
take note of the comments made, and revert to the issue at the next meeting.
__________