. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/WPDR/M/6
29 June 2000
(00-2679)
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
REPORT ON THE MEETIN G HELD ON 25 MAY 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation held a meeting on 25 May 2000.  The agenda for
the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/1306.  Members extensively discussed issues related
to necessity and transparency and, consequently, the Secretariat was asked to draw up a Checklist ofthe main issues under discussion.  Due to time pressures, Members were unable to give further
information on their consultations with domestic professional organizations regarding the
applicability of the accountancy disciplines to other professions.
(a) Discussion of Concepts Relating to the Development of Regulatory Disciplines
2. The Chairperson observed that the previous meeting in April began with a well-received
informal presentation by the OECD, concerning their work on regulatory reform and a new paper on
regulatory transparency.  He noted that the Secretariat had received the French version of the paper,
and translation into Spanish had been requested.
3. Discussion of concepts relating to the development of regulatory disciplines was held in
informal mode.  As an introduction, the Chairperson noted that, regarding necessity issues, at the last
meeting some delegations referred to legitimate objec tives, and the issue of whether a listing of such
objectives was needed.  One delegation noted that many of the examples that had been suggested were
very broad-ranging, and therefore doubts could be raised over the effectiveness of including such
objectives.  One delegation also suggested combining the necessity test from the accountancy
disciplines with, as a footnote, the wording suggested previously by Australia concerning the "thirdaspect" of the necessity test, i.e. the idea that a measure that has the effect of restricting trade can be
considered "necessary" only if there is no alternative measure less disruptive of trade which a Member
may reasonably be expected to employ to achieve the same policy objective.
4.  Regarding transparency, the Chairperson noted that, in addition to the presentation of the
U.S. paper (subsequently circulated as document S/WPDR/W/4), one delegation had referred to the
mandate contained in Article VI:4 as defining the limit of the work on transparency.  Other
delegations referred to the potential administrative burden of any new transparency measures, not
only with respect to developing country capabilities, but also in regard to the effects on local as well
as central governments.  A third delegation referred to certain elements which that delegation believedshould form part of the Working Party's discussions, e.g. publication and notification of measures
affecting licenses and authorizations, and the possibility of "question and answer" procedures
regarding such measures
5. In summarizing the informal discussions, the Chairperson stated there had been a rich debate,
with opinions expressed by many delegations.  On necessity, mention had been made of differences
between necessity tests with respect to Article VI:4 and those in the context of other GATS Articles,
e.g. in regard to safeguards.  There were also discrepancies between Member views concerning
proportionality and the definition of what would be more trade restrictive than necessary.  Many
Members did agree, however, that necessity and transparency should be given the same level ofS/WPDR/M/6
Page 2
importance in respect to the work of the WPDR.  C oncerning the scope and coverage of Article VI:4,
the Chairperson stated that additional work may be needed to reach agreement.
6. Regarding transparency, there was a good general acceptance of the U.S. paper.  Discussion
of the paper included questions on the overall coherence of GATS disciplines in this area.  There wasa question on where transparency disciplines should be directed, e.g. towards the services provider,
and another on whether greater reliance should be placed on the Internet and related technologies.  In
this context, the Secretariat had stated that the Contact Points of Members would soon be included in
the Services section of the WTO website.
7. Questions were raised on the applicability to the GATS of the types of notification
requirements found in other WTO agreements, with several Members stating that a measure ofprudence was required.  Some Members suggested that the WPDR monitor the reviews currently
underway for the TBT and other agreements.  A number of delegations referred to the potential
administrative burden of additional transparency requirements, not only in respect to developing
countries, but for the developed countries and the Secretariat as well.  Some Members questioned the
efficiency of existing GATS notification requirements, asking whether easier formats and fixedtimeframes were needed for submitting WTO notifications.
8. The transparency aspects of permitting prior consultations with trading partners in respect to
new legislative measures were discussed, with divergences noted in Member viewpoints.  The issue of
constitutional conflicts in connection with prior consultation was raised, leading to requests for furtherclarity in defining the elements of prior consultation.
9. In concluding, the Chairperson asked the Secretariat to draw up a Checklist of elements from
the meeting's discussion regarding transparency and necessity issues.
(b) Development of General Disciplines for Professional Services
10. Returning to formal mode, Chairperson noted that the remaining time was insufficient for
discussion under this topic, and asked Members to revert to this item at the next meeting.
11. The delegation of Hong Kong, China then requested that this item be placed first on the
agenda of the next meeting in order to ensure sufficient time for discussion.  The Chairman agreed,
stating that this item would be the first on the agenda in the event that the next meeting was again a
half-day session.  He asked that, in the meantime, Members expedite their domestic procedures in
order to ensure a maximum level of participation at the next meeting.
(c) Request for Observer Status from the International Association of Insurance Supervisors
12. The Chairperson again observed that previous Working Party meetings had noted that a
request for observer status had been received from the International Association of Insurance
Supervisors.  This request was contained in Job No. 779, dated 10 February 2000.  Members again
agreed to revert to the issue for the next meeting.
(d) Date of Next Meeting
13. The Chairperson again observed that Members had requested in the Council for Trade in
Services that meetings of subsidiary bodies be grouped close to meetings of the Council.  In
accordance with this request, the Chairperson suggested that the next meeting also be held before the
Council meeting, which was scheduled for 14 July.  The date of 12 July was approved by Members.
__________