RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/58
8 November 2000
(00-4711)
General Council
10 October 2000
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 10 October 2000
Chairman:  Mr. Kåre Bryn (Norway)
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the Chairman informed Members that a number of
pending issues before the General Council had not been included on the agenda since they were
subject to further informal consultations.  Such  items included the "Five-Year Review of the
Exemption Provided Under Paragraph 3 of the GA TT 1994", "Observer Status for International
Intergovernmental Organizations", "Review of Procedures for Circulation and Derestriction of WTODocuments", "Revision of Guidelines for the Scheduling of WTO Meetings" and "Procedures for the
Appointment of the Director-General".  However, if any delegation wished to address any of these
issues at the present meeting they could do so under "Other Business".  He expected that the above-
mentioned issues would be on the agenda for the December meeting when hopefully progress would
have been made on some, if not all, of these issues.
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Accession of Oman............................................................................................................ ........2
(a) Report of the Working Party................................................................................................. ......2
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration .............................................................5
(a) Report of the Comm ittee..................................................................................................... ........5
3. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce..........................................................................6
4. Arrangements for effective cooperation with other intergovernmental
organizations .................................................................................................................. .........14
(a) Approval of the Agreement between the International Telecommunication Union and
the World Trade Organization ..................................................................................................1 4
5. Proposal to amend certain provisions of the understanding on rules and
procedures governing the settlement of disputes pursuant to Article X of the
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization ................................15
(a) Submission by Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
Norway, Peru, Switzerland and Venezuela fo r examination and further consideration
by the Gene ral Council ......................................................................................................... ....15
6. Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the
Council for Trade in Services ................................................................................................23
7. Date and venue of the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference ................................27
(a) Statement by  the Chairman................................................................................................... ....27
8. Discussion paper on the func tioning of the WTO system....................................................30
(a) Statement by the Eu ropean Comm unities.................................................................................30
9. Submission on external transparency ...................................................................................30
(a) Statement by the United States .............................................................................................. ...30
10. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Bhutan .....................................31
(a) Announcement by the Chairman ..............................................................................................31WT/GC/M/58
Page 2
1. Accession of Oman
(a) Report of the Working Party (W T/ACC/OMN/26 a nd Add.1 and Add.2)
1. The Chairman recalled that in June 1996, the General Council had established a Working
Party to examine the request by Oman for accession to the WTO Agreement.  The Report of the
Working Party was now before the General C ouncil in the documents WT/ACC/OMN/26 and Add.1
and 2.
2. Mr. Akram (Pakistan), Chairman of the Working Party, introducing its report, said that
throughout the accession process Oman had exhibited a deep understanding of the requirements of the
WTO system, which had been reflected in the constructive positions adopted by Oman's delegation in
the negotiations.  Members had been impressed with Oman's broad-ranging and dynamic efforts
aimed at achieving conformity of its trade regime with the WTO rules and disciplines.  In tandemwith this multilateral exercise, Members had also conducted intensive and detailed bilateral market-
access negotiations with Oman in goods, including agriculture, and services.  The results of these
negotiations constituted the complete accession package of Oman to the WTO.  The Report of the
Working Party was circulated in document WT/ACC/OMN/26;  docume nt WT/ACC/OMN/26/Add.1
reproduced the schedule of concessions and commitments on goods; and documentWT/ACC/OMN/26/Add.2 reproduced the schedule of  specific commitments on services.  The
Working Party had adopted the goods and services schedules of Oman on 29 February 2000, and the
Working Party Report on 6 July 2000 on an ad referendum basis.  By this action the Working Party
had completed its mandate.
3. Members of the Working Party had noted with appreciation the efforts made by Oman in
putting into place the necessary legislation to implement the WTO Agreements by the date of its
accession to the WTO.  This ensured that Oman, upon entry into force of the Protocol of Accession,
would immediately become an effective participant in the WTO.  The Appendix to the Working
Party's Report reproduced the draft Decision and the draft Protocol of Accession of Oman to the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.  In accordance with usual WTO practice, theProtocol of Accession incorporated the specific  commitments undertaken by Oman in relation to
matters negotiated in the Working Party.  Oman would be the fifth of the six constituents of the Gulf
Cooperation Council to become a WTO Member.  Acce ssion to the WTO was an important step in the
integration of countries in this region into the world trading system, in parallel with their regional
integration efforts.  As Chairman of the Working Party, he wished to pay tribute to the continuous
efforts, good will and spirit of compromise displayed by the delegation of Oman, especially by its
Trade Minister, as well as by its negotiating partners.  This had enabled the Working Party toovercome the many difficulties encountered in the accession process.  The traditional spirit of
pragmatism of the GATT – and now the WTO – prevailed and allowed the conclusion of the Working
Party's work.  The results achieved in Oman's case spoke for themselves.  He recommended the
Report of the Working Party as well as the texts of the draft Decision and Protocol of Accession for
positive action by the General Council.
4. Speaking as the representative of Pakistan, he expressed his happiness to the delegation and
the Government of Oman on their country's accession into the WTO.  Oman and Pakistan were
neighbouring countries, with close ethnic, historical, religious and cultural ties.  Pakistan's political
relations with Oman were warm and fraternal.  Their economic relationship was a fact of history and
geography, bound to expand in the future.  Pakistan therefore was gratified that Oman's accession tothe WTO had been successfully completed.  Pakistan wished to be the first to welcome Oman as a
new Member and offered its continuing cooperation within the WTO.
5. The General Council approved the text of the draft Protocol of Accession and the text of the
draft Decision on the Accession of Oman and, in accordance with the Decision-Making ProceduresWT/GC/M/58
Page 3
under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), adopted the
draft Decision on the Accession of Oman.  The General Council then adopted the Report of the
Working Party in document WT/ACC/OMN/26 and Add.1 and 2.
6. The Chairman, on behalf of the General Council, welcomed the accession of Oman.
7. The representative of Oman, speaking as an observer , thanked the General Council for
adopting the Decision and Protocol of Accession of Oman to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing
the World Trade Organization.  His Government had authorized him to sign the Protocol of
Accession, confirming its acceptance by Oman.
8. Oman had for a long time followed open and liberal trade policies and had an open economy,
integrated into the world economy.  Tariffs on goods were very low by world standards and there
were virtually no non-tariff barriers.  The investment regime was open and outward-oriented.  Oman
welcomed foreign investment on a non-discriminatory basis and provided numerous incentives toforeign investors.  This record had made his country a natural candidate for WTO membership and
Oman was happy that the WTO had embraced it into its fold.  Oman strongly believed in the
principles of the rule-based multilateral trading system and supported its objectives.  As a WTO
Member, Oman would work with other Members to strengthen the multilateral trading system and
strive to ensure that all Members, especially smaller developing countries, would equitably share itsbenefits.  Oman looked forward to working closel y with other Members in different areas of WTO
endeavours, in particular in the effective implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements and in
the ongoing negotiations on agriculture and services.  It would also collaborate actively with other
Members to make the WTO more responsive to the interests and aspirations of its Members.  In
concluding, he wished to pay special tribute to Mr. Akram for successfully and admirably chairing theWorking Party on Oman's accession.  He also thanked WTO Members who extended their support to
Oman's accession as well as the WTO Secretariat for its efficient handling of the accession process.
9. The representatives of Bangladesh, Cyprus
, Ecuador , Egypt , European Communities , India ,
Japan, Jordan , Kenya , Kuwait , also on behalf of Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates ,
Morocco, Nigeria , Poland , on behalf of the CEFTA Members and Estonia, and Latvia , Singapore , on
behalf of the ASEAN Members, Tanzania , Tunisia , Turkey  and the United States  welcomed the
accession of Oman and looked forward to working with it in the WTO.  Many representatives who
spoke expressed appreciation for Mr. Akram's work as Chairman of the Working Party.
10. The representative of Tunisia said that the accession of Oman, a brother country with which
his country had excellent relations, contributed to achieve universality of the world trading system.  It
also showed that the credibility and efficiency of the WTO was increased through the encouragement
and the facilitation of accession for a maximum number of countries.  Oman's accession demonstratedthe will of Members to make the WTO an open and universal organization, whose objective was to
promote world trade in the interest of all trading nations.
11. The representative of the European Commun ities said that the Community particularly
welcomed the efforts made by Oman to adopt the range of legislative and institutional reforms
required to bring its trade regime into conformity  with the WTO.  Oman's commitments to a liberal
open-trading regime through the adoption of commercially sound market-access commitments were
also welcomed.
12. The representative of Morocco congratulated Oman for having carried out courageous
measures to help foreign investment. Oman was a brother country, and had carried out bilateral
negotiations, which had not been easy.  In concluding, she expressed concern for the lengthyaccession negotiations of many countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, who could benefit so much from
the system.WT/GC/M/58
Page 4
13. The representative of the United States said that the outcome of Oman's negotiations
represented a significant contribution to overall trade liberalization, and had been consistent with
Oman's broader long-term efforts to modernize and to expand economic opportunities for its people.
Oman had recognized that full participation in the WTO would complement its other policies
designed to foster economic growth.  In adopting the WTO provisions and confirming basic WTOprinciples of transparency, predictability, due process, and the rule of law, Oman had provided a very
important framework for further growth and development, and a strong basis for meeting the
economic challenges of the global economy.  Oman had also demonstrated its commitment to develop
the infrastructure necessary to build a modern trading system.  Since its decision to apply for WTO
membership in April 1996, it had successfully implemented some of the very important agreements,
such as the TRIPS Agreement, and had also revised its customs regulations to provide for the
implementation of the Customs Valuation Agreement.  Oman had also expressed interest in joining
the Government Procurement Agreement.  Thus, Oman had used the accession process to make
significant improvements in its economic and trade regime.  The United States was confident that
these commitments would help support Oman's efforts to enhance further investment and to welcome
foreign service suppliers, which could favour the economy and employment opportunities.
14. The representative of India said that Oman had taken a number of initiatives in its economic
administration and foreign trade regime to fulfill its commitments to the WTO.  Undoubtedly, some of
these initiatives had been difficult, and India congratulated Oman for dealing with these issues in a
pragmatic way. India looked forward to Oman's active participation in the WTO.  It had been India's
belief that universal membership of the WTO would benefit every Member, as well as the WTO itself.
Members were well aware of the strong historical relations between Oman and India in all areas,political, cultural, economic and commercial.  Last year Oman and India had concluded their bilateral
market-accession negotiations with a very constructive and forward-looking approach.
15. The representative of Ecuador, on behalf of GRULAC
, said that Oman had completed a very
difficult process of accession, which would be a new challenge for its trading system. The efforts
carried out by Oman during these negotiations would bring about very important benefits for itseconomy. Ecuador was fully convinced that Oman's membership would contribute positively to the
WTO's work.
16. The representative of Tanzania said that his country had very close historical ties with Oman,
which went back many years and which had been strengthened both in cultural and economic spheres.
Tanzania was pleased that Oman's accession to the WTO would also strengthen the cooperation
between the two countries in this important multilateral forum.
17. The representative of Egypt said that Oman's process of accession had not been an easy one,
despite the tremendous efforts of its authorities to satisfy the demands addressed to them.  However,
Egypt had never doubted Oman's capability to bring the process to a successful end and expressed
hope that Oman's accession would be a good omen for other countries, particularly from the same
region.
18. The representative of Singapore, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that over the last
few months Oman had intensified its pace of accession, and it commended Oman for its intensive and
determined preparation for accession to the WTO.  Oman's commitment to reform its trade regime
would contribute not only to its sustained economic development, but also to the strengthening of the
multilateral system.
19. The representative of Bangladesh said that as a brotherly fellow member of the Organization
of Islamic Conference, Bangladesh had followed Oman's accession with great interest.  His country
congratulated Oman on the adoption of the Working Party Report and its accession to the WTO.  HeWT/GC/M/58
Page 5
also stressed the need for a fast-track accession process for some countries, particularly least-
developed countries, if the WTO was to be the universal body it aspired to be.
20. The representative of Kuwait, also on behalf of  Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates ,
said that Oman had been an important partner in many fields and a productive member of the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC), composed of Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and theUnited Arab Emirates.  Since its creation, the Council had endorsed the principle of a multilateral
trading system, and the values of integration and interdependence.  He noted that Saudi Arabia was
also a strong believer in the multilateral system, and supported its objectives.  Therefore, he strongly
urged Members, specifically the members of the Saudi Arabia Working Party, to refrain from placing
excessive demands and to agree to a mutually beneficial package of balanced rights and obligations.
The accession of Oman and Saudi Arabia, both members of the GCC, would further enhance and
strengthen the multilateral trading system.
21. The representative of Poland, on behalf of the CEFTA Members, and Estonia and Latvia
,
congratulated Oman on the successful accomplishment of its accession negotiations.  He supported
the extension of the WTO to new members, and was convinced that Oman would bring a valuable
contribution to WTO's daily work.
22. The representative of Turkey said Oman's accession would strengthen the WTO, and it would
benefit the large region to which Turkey also belonged.
23. The General Council took note of the st atements and expressions of support.
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
(a) Report of the Committee
24. Mr. Akil (Turkey), Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration said
that before introducing the Committee's Report (WT/BFA/49) he wished to draw Members' attention
to the worrisome cash situation of the WTO.  At the end of August, arrears in contributions by
Members for the year 2000 represented 35 per cent, whereas the corresponding figure for 1999 was
only of 27 per cent.  Under such circumstances, the Secretariat would be able to meet its expenditures
until the end of October only.  Therefore Members whose contributions were in arrears should take
every step to ensure that their contributions be paid up as soon as possible.  Otherwise the Secretariat
would be compelled to seek authorization to resort to a bank loan in order to meet obligations which
could not be postponed.  Turning to the Committee's Report in WT/BFA/49, he said that a working
group had been established to study the fluctuations in Members' contributions which were not due to
a budget increase but which resulted from statistical data which determined the assessment of
Members' contributions.  The Working Group had come to the conclusion that the homogeneity of thestatistical data, i.e. the years taken into account for the calculation of contributions, and the issue of
fairness were important in order to minimize, insofar as possible, the fluctuations in contributions
from one year to another.  The recommendation in paragraph 9 of the report would therefore ensure a
greater homogeneity in the statistical data, which determined the percentage of Members'
contributions.
25. The representative of Jamaica said his delegation noted the effort made to bring greater
homogeneity to the statistical basis for the calculation of assessed contributions of Members.  By
including a greater number of years in the calculating base there would be more predictability and
fluctuations might be smoothed out.  Nevertheless,  Jamaica had some concerns with the continuing
sharp increase in its contributions to the WTO.  In the five years since the establishment of the WTO,Jamaica's assessed contribution had increased by 127 per cent.  The new methodology proposed asWT/GC/M/58
Page 6
well as the growth trend of the budget would inevit ably favour countries whose trade share would be
increasing and would penalise those whose trade performance trend would not do so well.  By using
this methodology, the scale of contributions might become more regressive for developing-country
Members whose trade performance was flat or even declining vis-à-vis  those with strong trade growth
given the lag that there would be in capturing that trade data in the assessment.  Thirty-five of the
poorest Members were assessed at a minimum threshold of 0.015 per cent even though their actual
trade share was in some cases much lower than that.  Moreover, the assessed contributions were based
upon trade in goods, services and intellectual prope rty rights without making any distinction between
imports and exports.  That distinction, however, was important since it had a real implication for
Members' capacity to pay, particularly in the case of poor, small and non-diversified economies.  For
example, he was not convinced that Jamaica's increase in trade share from 0.04 per cent in 1994 to
0.06 per cent in 2001 would not be largely caused by a persistent and growing merchandise tradedeficit, resulting from consistently increasing impor ts, due to trade liberalization.  In his view, the
fifty per cent increase in its trade share between 1994 and 2001 did not improve Jamaica's capability
to meet a higher level of assessed contributions.
26. The General Council took note of the statements, approved
 the Budget Committee's specific
recommendation in paragraph 9 of its Report in WT/BFA/49 and adopted the Report.
3. Work Programme on Electronic Commerce
27. The Chairman recalled that this was a standing item on the agenda of the General Council.  At
its meeting on 17 and 19 July 2000, the General Council had agreed to consider how best to organize
its work on electronic commerce in light of the reinvigorated work in the subsidiary bodies, includingthe question of an ad hoc task force to assist in the consideration of subsidiary body reports and cross-
sectoral issues.  It was also agreed that consultations on this issue would be held following the July
meeting.  The Chairman said that he had no particular proposal to make at this stage since these
consultations had not yet reached the point where he was in a position to put forward new ideas.  He
had however initiated consultations with the Chairp ersons of the four subsidiary bodies involved in
the work on e-commerce, namely the Councils for Goods, Services, TRIPS and the Committee on
Trade and Development.  He would continue to hold consultations on this matter, including on the
issue of the ad hoc task force, and would revert to it at the General Council meeting in December.
28. The representative of Venezuela expressed concern at the slow progress made by the WTO in
the area of e-commerce.  This seemed to re legate the WTO in comparison with the special
programmes which had been developed by countries themselves, including his own, where new
legislation with regard to information technology and electronic commerce had recently beenpresented.  In other organizations, including UNCTAD, ITU, WIPO, UNCITRAL and UNDP, there
was constant work underway to encourage analysis of the benefits that members, particularly
developing countries, could derive from e-commerce.  Venezuela attached great importance to a quick
conclusion of the WTO's assessment, which was still pending, as well as to the establishment of the
task force referred to by the Chairman.
29. The representative of Singapore said that one of the issues which had been deliberated on at
length under the work programme on electronic commerce, particularly in the Services Council, was
that of the classification of digitized products, i.e. products that could be transmitted electronically.
This was an important horizontal issue that the General Council should look at, as the classification
would ultimately determine the relevant WTO provisions applicable to such products.  Differentviews had been expressed on this matter.  The majority of Members had suggested that digitized
products electronically delivered should be considered services, and hence the disciplines of the
GATS would apply.  Some other delegations were of the view that even though digitized products
could be delivered through electronic means, insofar as the contents could be characterized as goods,WT/GC/M/58
Page 7
the GATT 1994 disciplines should apply.  Yet other delegations had raised the possibility of the
application of the TRIPS Agreement.  What was important was that the criteria for classification
should provide legal certainty on how digitized products should be treated.  At this stage, she wished
to provide some thoughts as to why digitized products should be treated as services, and hence subject
to the disciplines of the GATS.
30. First, her starting point had been derived from the basic thrust of the report of the Services
Council.  As had been evident from the discussion, transactions in a vast number of digitized products
had been regarded as services, e.g. film and musical digitized products.  There remained only a small
number of digitized products, e.g. software and digitized books for which the issue needed to be
clarified in view of the interchangeable contents between the physical and digitized form.  Moreover,
software had yet to be classified as services in the Central Product Classification Nomenclature.
Second, in the delivery of a digitized product, a distinction had to be made between two separatestages:  (i) the transmission of the product over the Internet to the consumer;  (ii) the immediate
consumption or storage of the product into a carrier  media for future consumption by the consumer.  It
was clear that the act of transmission of the digitized product over the Internet by the supplier had to
be considered as a service.  However, insofar as the digitized product was downloaded and stored, the
issue needed to be clarified.  From the perspective of the supplier, the question of whether a consumerchose to download and store a digitized product was immaterial as it was not part of the supplier's
service, i.e. the supply of the product through electronic means.  In other words, it was not part of the
transaction or trade.  How the consumer intended to use the downloaded digitized product was a
matter of personal choice and beyond the control of the supplier.  The product could be used for future
personal consumption, or for manufacture into physical goods form, but this fell within the realm ofproduction, not trade.  What was important was the actual transmission of the digitized products from
the territory of one Member to the territory of another Member for simultaneous consumption.
Hence, the relevant disciplines were those of the GATS.
31. These were some preliminary thoughts explaini ng why she believed the GATS approach was
most appropriate in treating digitized products.  It was conceptually sound and provided the legalcertainty on how digitized products should be treated.  Singapore would further elaborate on these
ideas in a paper that would be presented to the General Council in due course.  Her delegation was
open to any process that would fulfill the mandate of the 1998 Declaration on Global Electronic
Commerce and which would take the work on e-commerce forward.
32. The representative of the United States agreed with other Members to continue work in order
to ensure that the WTO played a positive role in encouraging the development of e-commerce.  To
date the 1998 work programme had performed a very useful role in educating delegates about thebenefits of e-commerce and in clarifying how WTO rules applied.  The United States was interested
in enhancing knowledge in this area.  While th e subsidiary bodies would report with updates in
December, it might also be useful for the General Council to consider at that time how it would
organize its work to fulfil the 1998 Declaration's mandate.  One way would be through an ad hoc task
force or horizontal group under the General Council, which the US would support.  In order toprovide a productive context for future work, Members should demonstrate to observers, including
industries that would partner such capacity-building initiatives, that they would complete their work
in an environment that would encourage trade in e-commerce, and would respond to developing
countries' concerns.  Members should work from several premises.  First, that e-commerce fell within
the scope of the WTO Agreements.  Second, that in keeping with the trade liberalization goals of theWTO, Members would avoid any unnecessary barriers to the growth of e-commerce.  Third, that
e-commerce had a vital role to play in enhancing development consistent with overall WTO
objectives.  This had been evident in recent bilatera l technical assistance initiatives, and in the General
Council initiative for capacity-building in developing  countries in the area of e-commerce, including
aspects related to access to technology and information technology.  She hoped that by the end of thisyear and during next year, in an environment that would foster e-commerce, Members could discussWT/GC/M/58
Page 8
and share more information and  look at how they could build around the different issues raised by
delegations.  Finally, she pointed out that other organizations including the ITU, ITC and UNCTAD
would be sharing information on this matter with the Committee on Trade and Development.
33. The representative of Japan said that after the work of the subsidiary bodies was completed, it
would be time for the General Council to take a decision to establish a task force to tackle the
horizontal issues.  He was pleased to hear that the United States now seemed to be in a position to
support the idea of establishing a horizontal task force.  As for the scope of the horizontal issues to be
taken up by a task force, Japan was flexible and the task force could add new issues that would be
recognized as relevant to a rapidly changing global economy.  In addition, if the horizontal task force
was established in December, it could also be appropriate for the General Council to consider
additional decisions which may be required, taking into account the work which had been done
leading up to the Seattle Ministerial Conference.
34. The representative of Korea said that the four subsidiary bodies' reports last year were very
useful and had deepened Members' understanding of e-commerce.  However since then, there had
been no substantive progress on how to deal with e-commerce within the framework of the WTO
Agreements.  Considering the ever-expanding development of e-commerce and its tremendous impact
on international trade, Members should have more intensive discussions on how to provide aconstructive framework for e-commerce.  During these discussions, Members should try to avoid
applying measures that might restrict e-commerce and should uphold the principle that the WTO rules
were relevant to e-commerce.  He hoped that discussions in the subsidiary bodies from now until
December would be productive in further identifying horizontal issues.  Resolving those issues was
important for meaningful progress in the discussion on e-commerce.  Therefore, a horizontal workinggroup should be established in December.
35. The representative of Switzerland said that his country was very interested in carrying out the
existing work programme on electronic commerce, which had remained dormant for too long.  This
should be done on the basis of two premises.  First, that the WTO rules did apply to e-commerce and
that there was an urgent need to investigate how these rules applied.  Second, Members should avoidtaking unnecessary measures relating to electronic transactions until the work programme had been
completed.  It was for these reasons that Switzerland had supported the Chairman's proposal last July,
instructing the four subsidiary bodies to continue their work to identify possible cross-cutting issues
and report back to the General Council in December.  He was eager to see the reports of the four
subsidiary bodies, and on that basis, he would be ready to endorse any creative idea that would foster
the WTO work on e-commerce.  In this respect, the creation of an ad hoc task force under the
responsibility of the General Council could be a possible solution in order to tackle the differenthorizontal issues that came up in the discussion.  He recognized that clear terms of reference would
need to be established for such a task force, and he hoped there would be some useful inputs from the
subsidiary bodies.  Should a credible work plan be worked out in this regard, Switzerland would
certainly support it.
36. The representative of the European Communities said that following the General Council's
decision in July 2000 to resume the work on e-commerce, the relevant subsidiary bodies had started
their work but apparently progress was slow.  If this  was the case, the pace of the work would need to
be accelerated.  This was the responsibility of the Chairpersons of the relevant subsidiary bodies who
would report to the General Council in December.  Considering that an in-depth discussion on the
updated reports would take place in December, it would be premature at this stage to either start aclassification debate or discuss the need for a horizontal group.
37. The representative of Chile shared the concern expressed by other delegations with regard to
the lack of action in the WTO on e-commerce.  He noted that in almost all of the reports submitted by
the subsidiary bodies last year, it was recognized that matters were still pending and that it wasWT/GC/M/58
Page 9
necessary to continue discussions.  However, a sectoral discussion would not really guarantee further
progress on the subject.  In some subsidiary bodies an attempt had been made to identify horizontal
issues but it had not been possible to achieve results beyond what had already been done.  In his
opinion, structures other than the subsidiary bodies and the General Council should be used to tackle
this problem.  Chile was in favour, as stated prior to Seattle, of setting up a special group to thiseffect.
38. The representative of Norway said that e-commerce and its possible implications for the
multilateral trading system should have a prominent place on the agenda of the WTO.  To this effect,
she strongly supported the reinvigoration of the work on e-commerce resulting from the General
Council's decision last July.  Norway appreciated th e fact that all four subsidiary bodies were now in
the process of fulfilling the mandate given to them by the General Council, namely restarting the work
on e-commerce within their respective spheres of competence as well as identifying potential cross-sectoral issues.  Norway looked forward to the subsidiary bodies' substantial inputs to the General
Council in December as a first step in this important process.  Furthermore, she agreed with those who
believed that an ad hoc task force under the General Council could facilitate the completion of the
work programme on electronic commerce.  She also agreed with Japan with respect to the merits of
building on the work that had been done leading up to Seattle.
39. The representative of Canada said that his country continued to support the 1998 work
programme on electronic commerce with the objective of promoting trade liberalization in this area.
Members had been on a steep learning curve and more work needed to be done.  He believed the
establishment of an ad hoc task force provided the best means to organize the work beyond
December, as it was clear from the work accomplished to date that there was a range of cross-cuttingissues that needed to be addressed.  Such a horizontal group should be of a non-negotiating nature and
should be reviewed at the next Ministerial Conference.
40. The representative of Brazil shared the interests of many delegations who had spoken,
including Singapore, who he hoped would be in a position to further present its ideas in the Services
Council.  He did not believe that updating reports and identifying cross-cutting issues was the onlytask in front of the relevant WTO bodies that were dealing with e-commerce.  The main objective of
these bodies was to deal substantively with the matter and it went far beyond a simple question of
updating and identifying.  In his view, the task be fore the General Council in December would be to
see whether the reports were substantive, clear and precise enough so as to allow the General Council
to take a decision on future work.  He hoped that the reports would fulfil this requirement, although
based on what he had heard of the reports so far, such optimism was not justified.  What the General
Council would have to decide in December was first whether cross-cutting issues had beensufficiently identified.  If so, the General Council would have to determine what should be done with
these cross-cutting issues and what to do with the issues that were not of a cross-cutting nature. He
was also waiting for the Committee on Trade and Development meeting to hear about other
organizations and institutions which had been dealing with the subject.  It was his impression that
Members might have been overly optimistic in their evaluation of how far other organizations hadprogressed in dealing with this subject.  Finally, he  said that Members should take all the decisions
which would ensure that such a promising new field in international trade brought about the benefits
that everyone expected.
41. The representative of Indonesia said that his delegation also attached great importance to the
issue of e-commerce.  There was a need to study e-commerce in a comprehensive manner, taking into
account the development dimension for developing countries.  E-commerce was an important issue,
not only for developed but also for developing countries who should be provided with technical
assistance in this field.  In this regard, the WT O could play a role in facilitating access to the
technology required to make e-commerce more beneficial for developing countries.  The WTO could
cooperate and coordinate with other international organizations such as WIPO, UNCTAD and ITU inWT/GC/M/58
Page 10
order to provide technical assistance for developing countries.  Given the cross-cutting nature of
e-commerce, he believed that this exploratory process would best be achieved through the
establishment of a non-negotiating horizontal working group or task force.
42. The representative of India recalled that at its July meeting the General Council had agreed
with the three elements proposed by the Chairman.  This was a practical way forward, without going
into the legalities of the 1998 Declaration or without taking any immediate decision regarding the
need or desirability of establishing an ad hoc task force under the General Council.  India continued to
feel that on the basis of the reports to be submitted by the relevant subsidiary bodies, consultations
should be held so that Members could decide by consensus on the need for an ad hoc task force.  India
had an open mind on this subject, but such a decision should be based on the reports received and on
the consultations with Members.
43. The three elements agreed at the July meetin g would suggest that while the General Council
would take a view on how to deal w ith the cross-sectoral issues, the other issues which fell within the
competence of the four subsidiary bodies would continue to be dealt with by the respective bodies.
India agreed with Brazil that the General Council had first to receive the reports of the subsidiary
bodies in order to make a final assessment on the matter.  At this stage, even if a task force was
established under the General Council, it might not be possible to overlook those issues that fellwithin the specific competence of the respective bodies.  The subsidiary bodies should continue to
deal with those issues or Members should find an alternative way of dealing with them.  India looked
forward to receiving the reports fro m the four subsidiary bodies, and to the consultations to be held by
the Chairman before a final decision was taken on the matter.
44. He welcomed the reference made by the United States to the issue of access to technology in
the context of e-commerce.  This issue was important for his delegation, regardless of the forum in
which it was considered, and he was grateful for the fact that this issue had been given due
recognition.
45. Finally, India recalled that there were other issues of great interest to developing countries,
which had no direct linkage to e-commerce but which had been raised in the context of thediscussions on e-commerce at the July General Council meeting.  In this regard, the Chairman had
also agreed to hold consultations and India looked forward to participating in them.
46. The representative of Australia agreed with other delegations that work on e-commerce
needed to be reinvigorated, as envisaged in the Ju ly decision.  He looked forward to the consultations
to be held by the Chairman and to the reports of the four subsidiary bodies in December, which should
serve to identify cross-cutting issues.  Australia would support the establishment of a horizontal
working group, provided that:  (i) the working group was time-bound;  (ii) it concluded its work bythe time of the next Ministerial Conference;  (iii) it did not act as a negotiating group;  and (iv) it did
not seek to intrude into sectoral issues which belonged to the relevant subsidiary bodies.  Finally, he
shared the view of other delegations that in the meantime, no unnecessary measures that hindered the
growth of e-commerce should be taken.
47. The representative of Nigeria said that following the reports by the relevant subsidiary bodies
and the consultations by the Chairman, work on e-commerce should be pursued taking into
consideration the particular needs of developing countries, in terms of capacity-building and the
provision of infrastructure.
48. The representative of Hungary said that he strongly supported the work programme of 1998
and the Chairman's efforts to reinvigorate WTO activity on the important issue of e-commerce.  He
looked forward with interest to the updated reports from the four subsidiary bodies and hoped that on
this basis, Members would be able to give a new positive impetus to work in this field.  He wasWT/GC/M/58
Page 11
pleased that in this debate many delegations shared the view that the common aim should be to create
a constructive framework, as mentioned by Korea.  Hungary considered that it would be premature to
try to fix the modalities or procedures to be used in order to have such a constructive framework prior
to receiving the reports from the subsidiary bodies.
49. The representative of Hong Kong, China agreed with previous statements on the importance
and relevance of e-commerce to the multilateral trading system.  In his view the work programme had
remained dormant for too long.  He recalled that the subsidiary bodies, including the Council for
Trade in Services, worked very hard last year in  identifying a number of issues requiring further
study.  When the subsidiary bodies reported back last year, the General Council was unfortunately
preoccupied by other matters and as a result, it had been unable, until earlier this year, to guide the
subsidiary bodies.  A tremendous amount of solid work had been done so far.  This work had now
restarted but it was clear that the subsidiary bodies had a lot more to do.  He agreed with otherdelegations' view that Members should wait to see the results of that additional work.  He did not
believe that Members should prejudge the need for a new body at this stage nor should they create
new bodies unless it was absolutely necessary, considering the difficulties created by the multiplicity
of bodies in the WTO.  He was not entirely convinced of the need for a horizontal group and was
concerned about possible intrusions into the valuable work of the sectoral Councils.  He lookedforward to further consultations after the reports had been received from the subsidiary bodies in
December.
50. The representative of New Zealand said that given the fact that the General Council had had
the subsidiary bodies' reports for over 12 months and that updated reports were expected from those
bodies, he hoped that procedural issues would not get in the way of substantive issues.  The realchallenge was the extent to which the General Council would be capable, in December, of providing
the necessary direction on issues identified by the su bsidiary bodies as well as future work.  It would
be of great concern to his delegation if the General Council was unable to do so.  New Zealand looked
forward to cooperating closely with the Chairman in  consultations that would lead to a substantive
discussion in December.
51. The representative of Panama believed that, although the subjects taken up in the subsidiary
bodies had not been exhausted, their work had reached a point where little progress could be made
before discussing horizontal issues.  Panama urged that consultations be held on the question of an ad
hoc group in order to give a new impetus to the work on e-commerce within the subsidiary bodies.
Such a group, if established, should not be a negotiating group.  It should be inclusive and have a very
specific mandate limited to horizontal issues.  Its work should not duplicate the work of other bodies.
More importantly, the group should work under the auspices of the General Council.  With referenceto the suggestion made by Japan that in addition to establishing an ad hoc group some other decisions
would have to be taken in December, he inquired what these additional decisions could be.
52. The representative of Jamaica believed that important decisions would need to be taken on the
question of e-commerce in December.  While it did not wish to prejudge the discussion of the reports
of the subsidiary bodies, Jamaica was of the view that a number of issues, including the cross-cuttingones, would require a more in-depth and specialized analysis and examination.  In principle, Jamaica
recognized the logic and good sense of having a horizontal non-negotiating task force as an important,
but not exclusive, element of future work on e-commerce.  Jamaica was prepared to take the
necessary decisions in December on this matter.  Jamaica considered e-commerce to be very
important and was prepared to work towards clarif ication of the issues involved and make further
progress on them, especially those concerning the developmental implications of e-commerce.
53. The representative of the Philippines suggested that the logical sequencing of the steps to be
taken should be considered.  He agreed with Brazil, India and Hong Kong, China that, given the
vague mandate that the subsidiary bodies had been given, the General Council should wait to seeWT/GC/M/58
Page 12
these reports.  The reports should then be carefully analysed before any decision could be made.
Several proposals had been made, including a wider debate on some of the substantive issues to be
taken up in the subsidiary bodies, but this was not the proper way to deal with them.  The General
Council should first consider what the various subsidiary bodies had specifically taken into
consideration so that tentative decisions could be made on how to proceed.  No precipitated decisionshould be made at present on an ad hoc task force, as the General Council did not have the appropriate
information to take such a decision.
54. The Chairman said that Members should keep in mind that the General Council had at the
moment on the table the four reports presented by the subsidiary bodies in July 1999.  He recalled that
part of the problem faced by the General Council was that it had not been able to deal with these
reports.  It was for this reason that the subsidiary bodies had been asked to update their reports, as
they had identified some issues that had not been clarified sufficiently.
55. The representative of Mauritius said his country also attached great importance to
e-commerce.  The work done so far in the subsidiary bodies had been quite useful but much work
remained to be done.  He said that e-commerce was already a thriving trade in many countries but
Mauritius had yet to see how its own trade could benefit meaningfully from e-commerce.  His
delegation would not stand in the way of a consensus in the General Council on this issue and fullyendorsed the Chairman's approach as outlined in his introductory statement.  He hoped that by
December, after the Chairman's consultations, his delegation would be in a better position to identify
the route to be taken in pursuance of work in this area.
56. The representative of Pakistan reiterated the great importance his country attached to the issue
of e-commerce.  He agreed with the three elements  identified by the Chairman in his statement in
July, which were without prejudice to any Memb er's position on the status of the 1998 Declaration.
In light of the inconclusive reports of the subsidiary bodies submitted in 1999 and considering the fact
that they were still debating the issue, it was premature to start discussing the various elements of an
ad hoc task force or any other horizontal working group.  Finally, he recalled that his country had
proposed the establishment of three working groups to deal with the relationship between trade andtransfer of technology, trade and debt and trade and finance.  Although the Chairman had made it
clear that there would be no cross-linkage with e-commerce, Pakistan recalled that the Chairman had
promised to start consultations on these matters and it looked forward to see this process started at the
earliest.
57. The representative of Malaysia agreed that the General Council already had reports from the
subsidiary bodies on the table, but those reports were made in July 1999.  Malaysia felt that in order to
reinvigorate the work on electronic commerce the issu es identified in the reports should be studied to
see whether there were new elements that should be added to them.  Considering the rapid
developments in e-commerce, the subsidiary bodies might identify additional horizontal issues as well
as more specific non-horizontal issues.  It was premature to consider the issue of a horizontal working
group.  The General Council should first consider the reports from the subsidiary bodies and then
decide accordingly.  It was also important that the WTO's approach to e-commerce was appropriate inorder to avoid a divide between developed and developing countries.
58. The representative of Argentina said that the priority was that the subsidiary bodies complied
with the decision taken by the General Council in  July to restart the work on e-commerce.  In
December, the General Council should analyse the reports of the subsidiary bodies and decide how to
move forward on horizontal and specific issues.  Concerning the possibility of creating a horizontal
group under the aegis of the General Council, he was still not convinced of the need for such a group.
However, his delegation remained open-minded and wa s ready to consider this option, or indeed any
other option that would make it possible to progress rapidly and efficiently in the consideration ofWT/GC/M/58
Page 13
e-commerce, not only on horizontal issues, but also on specific issues which were extremely
important.
59. The representative of Jordan said that his c ountry had encouraged growth in e-commerce and
welcomed international efforts in this domain.  Jordan was a small developing country that had only
recently become a Member of the WTO and lacked the suitable infrastructure needed for e-commerce.However, a wide debate was taking place in Jordan on the issue, driven by the private sector.  As a
result a consultative firm had been entrusted to study e-commerce in light of existing legislation as
well as the possibility of framing new legislation.  The results of this study were positive, and the
matter was being discussed on a wide basis among the competent authorities as well as private sector
institutions.  All participants expressed the wish to implement the recommendations of this study.
The first recommendation to be implemented was the initiation of a governmental programme on
e-commerce.  This required strengthening the ca pacity-building, including through technical and
financial assistance from developed countries.  Jordan would await the updated reports of the
subsidiary bodies but felt a special group or task force with terms of reference that would enhance
integrating e-commerce to the rule of law would be useful.
60. The representative of Uganda agreed with the Chairman that Members should not ignore the
reports already submitted by the subsidiary bodies.  However, as pointed out by others, the General
Council might have been a little dormant in letting the subsidiary bodies do the follow-up.  He said
that the General Council should wait for the updated reports from subsidiary bodies before any
decision could be taken on how to proceed.  His delegation was flexible and would be able to support
a proposal to establish a task force if it was convinced of its need.  Uganda's interest was the
developmental aspect of e-commerce.  He welcomed the presentation made the United States at thepresent meeting, which referred to the developmental dimension and endorsed the statement made by
India with regard to access to technology.  He hoped that after the subsidiary bodies' reports in
December, the matter could be taken further.  However, at present it would be premature to begin a
discussion on how to proceed.
61. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that her delegation was extremely
interested in the question of e-commerce.  She believed that the methodology of work was one that
Members had agreed to at the Geneva Ministerial Conference, namely that the matter should be
pursued in the subsidiary bodies.  At present, it would not be necessary to create a horizontal group.
She awaited with interest the reports of the subsidiary bodies in December and on that basis her
delegation would be in a position to consider how best to proceed with the work programme.
62. The representative of Barbados said that her country was also a developing country and a
small economy for which e-commerce was vitally important for its future development and therefore
supported the reinvigoration of the work programme.  However, there were still a number of questions
to be clarified on both substantive and procedural issues.  Her delegation was not at this point taking a
position for or against the creation of further bodies, but Barbados would monitor the situation and
wished to be included in consultations between now and December.  She finally echoed the sentiment
expressed by India with regard to the critical importance of access to technology.
63. The Chairman said that although most delegations had commented on whether or not to agree
on the creation of a horizontal group, there was no such proposal on the table at this meeting.  At
present the agreement reached in July had to be followed, i.e. that in the course of the autumn
Members would consult on this issue.  In the meantime, he would continue his consultations with the
Chairpersons of the four subsidiary bodies.  He noted that the meetings of subsidiary bodies held sofar had indicated that the situation might be slightly different from one body to the other.  In some
bodies, there was a feeling that there was not much more that could be done on a sectoral basis, while
in some others there were more issues outstanding.  No matter what sort of procedural debate was
held, the General Council was faced with the question whether it could itself, or with some assistance,WT/GC/M/58
Page 14
deal with the issues once they had been dealt with in the sectoral Councils and the Committee on
Trade and Development.  Members would have to revert to this matter in light of both, further work in
the subsidiary bodies and the consultations to be held.
64. The Chairman took note of the statements.
4. Arrangements for effective cooperation wi th other intergovernmental organizations
(a) Approval of the Agreement between the International Telecommunication Union and the
World Trade Organization (S/C/11)
65. The Chairman recalled that the text of the Agreement between the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the WTO had been adopted by the Council for Trade in
Services on 26 May.  Subsequently, the ITU Council had approved the Agreement at its annual
session on 19-28 July.  The Agreement contained in document S/C/11 was now submitted to theGeneral Council for approval.
66. The representative of Pakistan noted the relevant paragraphs in the cooperation agreement
between the ITU and the WTO relating to the need for such a cooperation.  He believed that the
logical course of action should have been first to grant observer status to the ITU and thereafter to
conclude a cooperation agreement with it.  That course of action had not been possible as the observerstatus issue was in an impasse for reasons known by all.  His delegation was not opposed to the
cooperation agreement with the ITU, as the WTO would gain from the technical expertise of the ITU,
but the decision to have such an agreement should have been taken by the General Council, as
provided for in Article XXVI of the GATS.  He sought confirmation that this agreement did not
confer observer status to the ITU in the General Council and would not set a precedent.  If these twopoints were confirmed, his delegation would join the consensus with regard to the approval of this
agreement.  As regards the question of the pending requests for observer status by international
intergovernmental organizations, he looked forward to an early solution thereto.
67. The representative of Egypt shared the views expressed by the representative of Pakistan.
68. The representatives of Bulgaria and the Democratic Republic of Congo supported the
cooperation agreement with the ITU, as the WTO would benefit from the ITU's expertise, particularly
as regards telecommunications.
69. The Chairman referred to the points raised by Pakistan and said that it was his understanding
that the agreement with the ITU did not set a precedent since each cooperation agreement had to be
negotiated in its own right.  As to the point on observer status, the agreement granted observer status
to the ITU in the Council for Trade in Services and in the Ministerial Conference.  The issue of
observer status to the ITU in the General Council would have to be dealt with in that body.
70. The representative of Pakistan thanked the Chairman for his clarifications and underlined that
the cooperation agreement with the ITU should be considered as an exceptional case, since this
agreement was made pursuant to WTO Agreement provisions relating to cooperation with the ITU.1
In his delegation's view, the WTO should not negotiate separate agreements with other organizationsunless it had first granted them observer status.
71. The Chairman recalled that Article V of the WTO Agreement allowed the General Council to
make appropriate arrangements for effective cooperation agreement with other international
                                                     
1 GATS, Annex on Telecommunications, paragraph 7.WT/GC/M/58
Page 15
intergovernmental organizations, and observer status could be granted in that context.  That
prerogative conferred to the General Council by the WTO Agreement could not be denied.
72. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation would be extremely concerned if, in the
future, the Secretariat was to negotiate a cooperation agreement with an international
intergovernmental organization that did not have observer status in the WTO.
73. The representative of Brazil said that it was his understanding that the cooperation agreement
gave the Secretariat the right to invite the ITU as an observer in only two specific circumstances but
that the ITU did not have permanent observer status in the two bodies concerned.
74. The Chairman said that the wording in the text was the usual formulation used.  With the
approval of the cooperation agreement, the ITU would have observer status in the Council for Trade
in Services and in the Ministerial Conference.
75. The representative of the United States agre ed with the Chairman's interpretation on the
question of precedent.
76. The General Council approved the Agreement between the ITU and WTO contained in
document S/C/11 and consequently authorized the WTO Director-General to sign this Agreement.
The General Council invited the WTO's Director-General to inform Members and consult with them
regularly as to matters relating to the implementation of this Agreement.
5. Proposal to amend certain provisions of the understanding on rules and procedures
governing the settlement of disputes pursuant to Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization
(a) Submission by Canada, Colombia, Costa Ri ca, Ecuador, Japan, Korea, New Zealand,
Norway, Peru, Switzerland and Venezuela for ex amination and further consideration by the
General Council (WT/GC/W/410)
77. The Chairman said that the proposal, contained in document WT/GC/W/410, had been
submitted by the above-mentioned 11 Members for examination and further consideration by the
General Council.  The item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of Japan on behalfof the co-sponsors of the proposal.
78. The representative of Japan, on behalf of the co-sponsors of the proposal
, said that the
11 Members were jointly presenting a proposal to amend the Dispute Settlement Understanding
(DSU) with a view to its improvem ent.  He recalled that the General Council had agreed more than a
year ago, that the issue of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU should be considered
as a priority issue in the DSU review.  Since then many Members had continued discussions on this
important issue.  This was both a priority issue and one on which there was a very high possibility ofreaching a consensus.  It was Members' responsibility to resolve this important systemic issue in order
to strengthen the multilateral trading system.  The co-sponsors believed that it was necessary and
appropriate to restart the examination of the poss ible amendments to the DSU at the level of the
membership as a whole.  The co-sponsors were open to any further discussion on this matter.  The
proposal presented a solid basis for future work but its examination and further consideration by theGeneral Council were necessary before a consensus could be achieved.
79. He noted that the dispute settlement system, through panels and the Appellate Body, provided
a useful tool to clarify ambiguities or differences in the interpretation of a particular language.
However, this could not amend the language itself.  Furthermore, the work of panels and theWT/GC/M/58
Page 16
Appellate Body was case-specific.  In the view of the co-sponsors, a proposal for amendment was
completely separate from specific dispute settlement cases and should not be viewed as affecting any
particular case.  An amendment of a rule, which applied to all Members, was a prerogative of
Members.  It was a general view that, regardless of the outcome of a specific dispute, more detailed
treaty language and a more holistic mechanism were required on the issues of sequencing andcompliance in order to ensure the multilateral character of dispute resolution.
80. The proposal presented by the co-sponsors was based on the one that had been submitted to
the Ministers in Seattle and was a result of the work in which a large number of Members, including
the co-sponsors of the present text, had participated.  However, the co-sponsors of the proposal had
decided to focus on the issue of sequencing where, they believed, an early solution was possible.
Japan hoped that this proposal would serve as a basis for future work and asked the Chairman of the
General Council to hold informal consultations with the DSB Chairman and interested Members todiscuss how best to proceed on this matter and to revert to it at the December meeting.
81. Many representatives who spoke thanked the representative of Japan for his presentation and
the co-sponsors for putting forward the proposal.
82. The representative of the European Communities recalled that the Community had been an
active player in the discussions on the DSU review and had identified and proposed a series of
possible improvements to the dispute settlement system, which it felt had to be addressed.  He
believed that further discussions on a number of issues were necessary before considering the
amendments suggested by the present proposal which, attempted to address a set of important issues
related to Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.  However, in the Community's view, further reflection and
detailed consideration was necessary in order to ensure that the whole range of issues relevant tosequencing was covered.  For example the proposal was silent on the "carousel" issue, a lacuna that
was not acceptable.  In considering any amendment of the DSU it was necessary to address a number
of other elements that had been identified in the operation of the DSU.  For these reasons, the
Community considered that at this stage it was premature to amend the DSU.  The Community
supported the need to amend the DSU and was ready to continue to participate actively and contributeconstructively to the discussions, which should be held in a comprehensive way.  The Community
would be ready to participate in any informal cons ultations on the present proposal or on any other
proposals that might be presented.
83. The representative of Thailand said that the proposal was a genuine attempt to streamline the
dispute settlement process and seemed to respond to Members' concerns regarding both the
strengthening of the multilateral dispute settlement mechanism and the need to ensure an efficient and
relatively fast process for such dispute settlement.  The proposal also seemed to take due account ofthe many practical experiences encountered in the dispute settlement system since 1995 and
constituted a good starting-point for Members in considering the issue of amending the DSU.  With
regard to the substance, there was a need to carefully consider whether the package proposed was
comprehensive.  For this reason, Thailand, while realizing that it was necessary to deal with the
proposal expeditiously, wished to consider whether its elements should be taken up separately fromany other equally urgent and important issues.  With regard to procedural matters, Thailand was
flexible as to the form that this exercise might take, should it be formal or informal.  It was also
flexible with regard to the timing of a possible consideration of this proposal by the General Council
and would welcome informal consultations with a view to taking a decision thereon in December.
84. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation would examine the proposal
in detail and reserved the right to put forward amendments at a later stage.  He reiterated its strong
support to the principles of multilateral determination and sequencing, which were the core elements
of the proposal.  The representative agreed that the Chairman conduct informal consultations on theWT/GC/M/58
Page 17
appropriate way forward, as soon as possible.  In this regard, he believed that the DSB, which was the
General Council meeting in another mode, would have a useful role to play in the process.
85. The representative of Korea noted the broad measure of consensus among Members with
regard to the importance of the sequencing issue.  He recalled that discussions had been held on this
issue on many occasions, in particular in the context of the Banana case, the Salmon case and theAircraft cases.  On these occasions, Members had expressed their concern on the sequencing issue and
on the need to resolve this issue in a timely manner.
86. Like many other Members, Korea considered that the improvement of the DSU should not be
limited to the issue of sequencing.  Korea, as a frequent user of the DSU over the past five years, was
well aware of other possible improvements that had been identified during that period of time.
However, no other proposal for the DSU amendment enjoyed as much support as the one on the
sequencing issue.  While the amendment package should be as broad as possible, the important andurgent issue of sequencing required timely action.  Over the past five years, the WTO dispute
settlement system had proven to be a very useful mechanism.  However, the system should not be
overburdened, nor should it be expected to resolve issues that should be resolved by Members.
87. Finally, the representative of Korea said that the efforts made to put forward the amendment
package at the present meeting had created momentum.  In view of the importance and urgency of theissue, Korea hoped that the General Council would take advantage of this momentum and resolve the
issue in a timely and responsible manner.
88. The representative of Brazil said his country had participated in discussions on the DSU
review and welcomed the fact that the co-sponsors had decided to table their proposal.  The proposal
deserved careful consideration, so as to come  forward with suggestions for amendments and
improvements.  As a major user of the system, Brazil had a direct interest in the final outcome of this
exercise and was willing to participate in any consultations that would be held on this proposal.
Finally, he noted that certain footnotes from the Seattle text had disappeared in the present proposal.
89. The representative of New Zealand said that the proposal focused on clarifying the situation
regarding the sequencing of Article 21.5 action on the review of implementation of panel and
Appellate Boy rulings and Article 22 action regarding retaliation.  On the basis of past discussions in
the DSB and the General Council, New Zealand believed that with regard to sequencing Members
recognized the clarification of the DSU provisions as a key priority.  While agreement on the
necessary amendment may take longer to achieve than it had hoped, New Zealand believed that
resolution of this issue should be accorded a high priority in the coming months.  He would welcome
the Chairman's pursuing consultations on this proposal to determine the best way forward in
consultation with the DSB Chairman.  Finally, he thanked Mr. Suzuki (Japan) for the leading role hehad played over a long period in assisting the co-sponsors to put forward, what New Zealand
considered to be an excellent proposed amendment.
90. The representative of Canada said that his country was not convinced by the views expressed
by some delegations that the proposal was premature and considered that Members had the right, and
even the duty, to seek to strengthen the functioning of the dispute settlement system.  It was importantto build on the work done prior to Seattle and this proposal allowed Members to move forward on the
important task of improving the DSU.  While the text was not perfect, it represented a substantial
improvement over the current DSU rules by clarifying the unsettled and uncertain relationship that
currently existed between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.  Moreover, much of what was in the
proposal had been carefully negotiated over several months in 1999 and, in that sense, reflected abroad consensus within the WTO.  Canada therefore encouraged all Members to give this proposal
serious consideration and looked forward to any discussions thereon.  Finally, Canada supported the
proposal that the Chairman conduct informal consultations.WT/GC/M/58
Page 18
91. The representative of Jamaica welcomed the in itiative to resolve some of the outstanding
issues from the DSU review and particularly, the clarification of the sequence between Articles 21
and 22, in which it had a particular interest.  However, this was not the only matter for resolution in
connection with the DSU and Jamaica had an interest in seeing the other outstanding issues positively
resolved.  Jamaica would consider the proposal put forward and was ready to engage in furtherdiscussions.
92. The representative of Switzerland said that the proposed amendment would improve the
functioning of the dispute settlement procedure by resolving the most important issue of sequencing.
This had caused considerable problems within the organization.  The proposed amendments,
including procedural clarifications and the shorte ning of certain time-periods, would lead to a
streamlining of the DSB procedure and would enhance the efficiency and credibility of the dispute
settlement procedure.  Switzerland supported the approach proposed by Japan on how to moveforward on this proposal and would participate in the consultations to be conducted by the Chairman.
93. The representative of Norway endorsed the presentation made by Japan in introducing this
proposal.  The DSU was a unique mechanism, which provided Members with a means to solving
disputes that might arise under the WTO Agreements.  The WTO dispute settlement mechanism,
which had functioned for almost six years and was faced with an increasing number of cases, had tobe considered a success.  However, experience had also revealed that the mechanism had certain
weaknesses that needed to be addressed.  Obviously, the negotiators could not predict the full range of
problems that might arise in the dispute settlement process, nor could they provide the DSU with the
means to address every potential conflict.  In that sense, the lack of clarity with respect to the
sequencing of Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU was a principal flaw in the DSU that had to becorrected.  Norway had taken an active part in the review of the DSU.  It was its firm belief that it was
Members' prerogative to develop a legal framework while the task of panels and the Appellate Body
was to apply these rules in specific disputes.  This had a systemic significance for the WTO beyond
the current proposal.  The main problems identified in the DSU review had, to a substantial extent,
been included in the proposal presented.  However, the proposal should not be regarded as conclusive,but rather as a first step in a process that would also enable Members to put forward new issues.
Norway thanked Mr. Suzuki for his leadership in placing this important issue on the agenda of the
General Council.  Norway firmly believed that  a process aimed at improving the DSU had to be
initiated as soon as possible and supported the way forward proposed by Japan.
94. The representative of the Czech Republic said his country supported the thrust and intentions
of the proposal and shared the view that the DSU should be amended and modified.  However, he was
not sure whether the changes should be limited to those mentioned in the current submission.  Thisproposal seemed to be the first attempt to amend a WTO Agreement pursuant to Article X of the
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  He believed that the steps taken would set a precedent
for any future proposal based on the same provision and therefore, suggested a cautious approach in
the process to be launched.  Members had to ensure that the DSU worked as well as possible and that
it preserved its relevance in settling disputes. His delegation agreed that the Chairman should conductconsultations on how to address the matter at hand.
95. The representative of Argentina said his country shared the systemic concern regarding
sequencing between Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, to which the proposal attempted to find a
solution.  Other proposals by Members, including Argentina, had been submitted on the same issue in
the context of the DSU review.  Argentina was not questioning the right of any Member or a group ofMembers to propose amendments to the WTO Agreements when they considered it appropriate.
However, in this particular case, it would have been preferable to have informal consultations on the
proposal prior to inscribing it as an item on the General Council's agenda, considering the precedent
that it could generate and the need to ensure a certain degree of stability in legal texts.  Argentina
considered that the technique of submitting a text to the General Council, when legal issues aroseWT/GC/M/58
Page 19
before the Appellate Body, created a "second channel of opportunity" for such legal issues.  This had
a systemic implication that should be considered carefully.  His delegation would not comment on the
substance of the proposal at this stage but expressed reservations regarding some of the points
contained in the proposal, more specifically the issue of the reduction of time-periods. Argentina
would give favourable consideration to consultations on how to proceed further on this matter, as longas the mandate for such consultations was made clear.  It was important that the process did not
represent a re-opening of the DSU review and that no strict deadlines were set to conclude these
consultations.
96. The representative of the United States welcomed the opportunity to engage in discussions on
the needed improvements to the DSU.  She hoped that in the coming months, Members could reach an
agreement on changes to the DSU that would improv e its provisions on the implementation of panel
and Appellate Body reports.  She also hoped that th e transparency of the dispute settlement process
could be enhanced, along with other technical change s.  However, the United States did not believe at
this time that the proposal provided a basis for the consensus required to adopt an amendment to the
DSU.  The United States agreed with the co-sponsors that the text could not be adopted without an
agreement on appropriate transitional provisions to clarify how or whether amended procedures
would apply to pre-existing disputes.  The United  States would continue to discuss with other
delegations ways to move forward on the matter at hand and hoped that some progress could be made
in the coming months.
97. The representative of Uruguay thanked the co-sponsors for having had the courage to put
forward a proposal under Article X of the WTO Agreement, as it was the first time that such a
proposal had been made.  His country shared the objectives of the proposal and its content and couldhave gone along with it had there been consensus.  Uruguay was willing to work and support efforts
towards the modification of the DSU, so as to adapt it to needs that had been identified by Members
during the operation of the DSU.  Uruguay would make a constructive contribution in any future
discussions on the proposal that the Chairman would consider necessary.
98. The representative of Panama recalled that his country had participated actively in the DSU
review.  At that time its position had been that the draft text proposed had much merit, but on some
points Panama still had major concerns and could not join in a consensus.  Panama would carefully
consider with an open mind this new proposal to amend DSU provisions on the basis of the previous
draft.  Panama would consider the holding of info rmal consultations, without prejudice to what their
outcome might be.  If such consultations were to be held, they should be conducted with the input of
the DSB and should not lead to another DSU review.
99. The representative of Chile supported the proposal, which would strengthen the multilateral
trading system.2  His country would participate actively in consultations.  The proposal reaffirmed
Members' right to interpret and modify WTO Agreements, a power that was not given to panels or the
Appellate Body.  It also contained a series of provisions making more effective the special and
differential treatment for developing countries.
100. The representative of Kenya said that the proposal was a positive contribution towards
addressing some shortcomings of the DSU.  However, it did not go far enough in taking into account
the concerns raised by developing countries, especially prior to the Seattle Ministerial Conference.
First, the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU did not adequately take into account the
difficult situation of a developing country authorized by the DSB to retaliate against a developed
country, as a developing country could suffer from imposing such measures against a powerfultrading partner.  It was therefore necessary that a provision for collective retaliation be included in
Article 22 of the DSU in order to address this issue.  Second, in some past cases the findings and
                                                     
2 Subsequently Chile became a co-sponsor of the proposal (WT/GC/W/410/Add.1).WT/GC/M/58
Page 20
conclusions of panels and the Appellate Body seemed to have modified rights and obligations of
Members.  Thus, in the Shrimp case the right of a panel to seek information under Article 13.1 of the
DSU had been interpreted as meaning an obligation to receive such information.  This seemed to have
given non-governmental organizations more rights than Members wishing to be third parties.  Under
Article 10.2 of the DSU Members were required to notify the DSB of its substantial interest, while thenon-governmental organizations did not seem to face the same requirement in the Shrimp case.
Kenya believed that where panel or Appellate Body findings or conclusions were considered to be
inconsistent with the obligations and rights of Members, or where an interpretation would modify
Members' obligations and rights, the matter should be referred to the General Council for an
authoritative interpretation.  Kenya also believed  that the current provisions for special and
differential treatment contained, for example in Articles 21.7, 21.8 and 24 of the DSU, needed to be
clarified and strengthened with a view to compensating the affected industries.
101. The representative of Ecuador said that the current text of the DSU presented serious
problems relating to sequencing in implementing the recommendations adopted and the authorization
to withdraw concessions.  Members had recognized this problem during the DSU review, as they had
given this topic priority.  Members involved in cases where the sequencing between Articles 21 and
22 of the DSU had been an important issue, had had to find ad hoc procedures to avoid conflicts oflegal interpretation.  The current proposal provided a new opportunity to remedy such shortcomings.
Negotiations could start with consultations by the Chairman, if the General Council so agreed.
Finally, Ecuador joined Norway and New Zealand in underlining the important work carried out by
Mr. Suzuki on this subject.
102. The representative of Turkey said that the proposal encompassed important issues and
enjoyed the support of several countries.  This showed that the time had come to take a closer look at
the dispute settlement system.  Turkey would support meaningful discussions based on this proposal
and other proposals as well.
103. The representative of Venezuela said that the proposal was the result of constructive work
carried out before and after Seattle by a great number of Members, exceeding the number of co-
sponsors of the present proposal.  Among the subjects covered during the DSU review, the issue of
sequencing of implementation provisions in the DSU was clearly the most important concern of
Members.  This proposal was a window of opportunity in seeking to ensure greater participation of
Members towards a consensus on this subject in the not too distant future.  With regard to the concern
expressed by some delegations at the disappearance of footnotes from the Seattle text, he said that this
was a decision taken by the co-sponsors of the present proposal in an effort to present a balanced text.
Finally, Venezuela joined Norway, New Zealand and Ecuador in thanking the Japanese delegation,and in particular Mr. Suzuki, for the time devoted to the coordination of the discussion, which had
enabled the co-sponsors to submit this proposal.
104. The representative of Guatemala reserved his delegation's right to make comments at the time
of consultations that would be convened by the Chairman.  Guatemala believed in the DSU system,
which was one of the rare mechanisms allowing a small and open economy like Guatemala toenhance its rights.  The reform of the DSU was of particular importance and should aim at
strengthening the multilateral trading system.
105. The representative of Australia said that the matter at hand was of great importance and
should be subject to consultations if Members so agreed.  Australia was reflecting on its own
experience on the sequencing issue with a view to defining its position on the elements that itconsidered relevant to the reform of the DSU.  Australia believed that it would be premature to
resume negotiations on the basis of this or any other particular text.WT/GC/M/58
Page 21
106. The representative of Colombia said that her country co-sponsored the proposal to amend the
DSU for the following reasons.  First, the proposal included points on which her country had insisted
in the discussion prior to Seattle, in order to preserve the current guarantees for developing countries.
Second, the text proposed increased transparency at every stage of the dispute settlement process,
placed emphasis on the management of the system by the DSB and improved the conditions ofparticipation of third parties in the proceedings.  Third, the proposal reintroduced the issue of the
dispute settlement mechanism as an important element of the agenda.  Although the present proposal
was not perfect it was a first step, to be followed by consultations in which Colombia would
participate actively.
107. The representative of Hungary said that his delegation had actively participated in the
negotiations aimed at improving the dispute settlement system.  Hungary had hoped that a
comprehensive proposal would be tabled at the present meeting.  Certain elements were not containedin the present proposal and it would be useful to reintroduce them.  Hungary shared the view that it
was the duty and responsibility of Members to amend, modify, interpret and improve basic provisions
of WTO Agreements.  This applied not only to the sequencing issue, but also to other issues that had
been the subject of past discussions and which were not contained in the proposal.  Hungary
supported Japan's proposal on how to proceed on the matter and expressed gratitude to Mr. Suzuki forhis efforts throughout the process.
108. The representative of India said that his delegation welcomed the proposal for the following
reasons.  First, it represented a conscious attempt by a group of Members to take the initiative to
ensure that existing ambiguities in the DSU were removed.  India had always been of the view that
Members should not become passive observers to the jurisprudence developed by judicial institutions.
Second, the sequencing issue was very important for a large number of Members, including India.
Third, India had been an active participant in the discussions on the DSU review that had been held
before Seattle, and the current text was substantially the same as the one supported by India at that
time.
109. Nevertheless, India had certain concerns about the proposal.  First, while the proposal sought
to address the sequencing issue, it did not deal with all sequencing-related issues.  Second, there were
other issues in the DSU, not directly related to sequencing, which also needed to be considered and
which were not addressed in the proposal.  Third, the proposal did not include some issues in relation
to which India wished that the jurisprudence developed by panels and the Appellate Body be reversed.
While the merits of the proposal were largely recognized, some Members including India had
expressed some concerns.  Therefore, India was prepared to participate in any consultations by the
Chairman on this matter.  Since the General Council and the DSB were mirror images, the Chairmancould, on behalf of the General Council, ask the Chairman of the DSB to hold consultations on this
proposal and try to come up with consensus-based recommendations as early as possible.  This was
only a suggestion and India could go along with any methodology decided upon by the Chairman for
carrying out consultations on the proposal.
110. The representative of Malaysia, said that his delegation could go along with the proposal.  His
country had participated in discussions on amendments to the DSU before Seattle and supported a
solution to the sequencing issue.  Malaysia was willing to consider any other proposals, such as the
“carousel” proposal, in which it had a systemic interest.  Malaysia was willing to consider any
proposal consistent with the intergovernmental contractual character of the WTO and which was
related to the core issues of the DSU.  However, Malaysia could not accept proposals that called forenhanced transparency in the form of allowing public participation or amicus curiae  briefs as
envisaged by some delegations.  Malaysia urged other Members not to make unrealistic proposals as
this could prolong the process.WT/GC/M/58
Page 22
111. The representative of Cuba said that the proposed amendments were positive and constituted
a good starting point for future work.  Cuba agreed with other delegations who had stated that other
aspects not included in this document, mainly issues raised by the developing countries, should also
be borne in mind.  He hoped that future consultations would move forward the work on this very
important subject.
112. The representative of Pakistan said that his co untry would be ready to engage in consultations
on the proposal, although it agreed with the view that much ground would need to be covered before
Members could reach a consensus on the issues involved.
113. Pakistan pointed out that the proposal did not go far enough, as there were many other issues
that also needed to be considered.  Among these was the issue of interpretation of the WTO
Agreements, especially by the Appellate Body.  Pakistan believed that interpretation of the
Agreements was the responsibility of the intergovernmental bodies, not of the judicial bodies, and thatthe Agreements could not be modified through the judicial process.  Pakistan was of the view that the
concept of retaliation was insufficient to give redress to developing countries and the experience of
Ecuador was a case in point.  Another issue was the so-called “ amicus curiae  briefs”.  Pakistan also
believed that the special and differential treatmen t provisions for developing countries, including
Articles 12.11, 21.7 and 21.8 of the DSU, needed to be further elaborated and effectivelyimplemented.  Moreover, issues such as the question of the time-frames for submissions and
compliance, financing of dispute settlement, capacity-building and technical assistance, which were
among the issues of concern to developing countries should also be addressed.  Pakistan welcomed
the suggestion that the Chairman of the DSB be entrusted with the consultations and hoped to be able
to raise its concerns and views in this process.  Pakistan also hoped that some understanding could bereached in the General Council, which would not actually require the revision of the Agreement but
would help developing countries.
114. The representative of Saint Lucia said that her delegation was in favour of consultations on
the proposal, which constituted an effort towards adding clarity to DSU rules and reinforced the
sequencing of Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU as originally intended.  Saint Lucia looked forward toparticipating in future consultations on this issue, as well as on some of the other issues raised by
other Members.
115. The representative of Mexico said that his country’s position on the matter was well known as
Mexico had taken an active part in all consultati ons on the DSU review and even submitted its own
proposal on the matter.  Mexico agreed with other delegations that the consultations, should the
General Council decide that such consultations were to be held by the Chairman, should take on board
two elements.  First, that there were other issues pending that should also be analysed and second, thatMembers should not prejudge that these consultations would take place on the basis of the present
paper or any other paper.
116. The representative of Bulgaria said that his co untry was also interested in the main focus of
the proposal, i.e. the sequencing between Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Bulgaria had taken an active
part in the consultations during the DSU review, both before and after Seattle and had a number ofconcerns, including with regard to time-frames.  Bulgaria would study carefully the proposal and
reserved its right to revert to it.
117. The representative of the Philippines noted that the co-sponsors had presented their proposal
as being modest and had only asked at this stage that the Chairman conduct informal consultations on
how to proceed.  The Philippines agreed with the co-sponsors that this proposal was modest andbelieved that this was probably deliberate.  The sequencing issue was only one of the issues taken up
in the DSU review but the difference in opinions at the time made consensus impossible.  The issue of
sequencing was subject to a specific mandate from the General Council as, at the time of the BananaWT/GC/M/58
Page 23
dispute, Members had unanimously recognized that the issue would need to be addressed.  He said
that the proposal before the General Council was not comprehensive and that his country had its own
proposals that were not contained therein.  Howeve r, when consultations were held, Members would
have the opportunity to consider whether or not other proposals on sequencing or, any other
proposals, would be prejudiced by the approval of the proposal under consideration.
118. The Philippines also referred to the important issue of transitional provisions raised by the
United States, which it thought should be given consideration in the course of future consultations.
Finally, the Philippines said that Members should de cide whether modest progress was better than no
progress.  In the Philippines' view, modest progress was better than no progress.
119. The representative of Egypt said that the proposal was currently under consideration by his
authorities.  Egypt would have no difficulty with the Chairman holding informal consultations with an
open time-frame.  Egypt agreed with Kenya that the proposal did not address the concerns of manydeveloping countries regarding the DSU and asked the Chairman to ensure that future consultations
on this particular proposal did not prejudice in any way the possibility for other Members to propose
other amendments.
120. The Chairman said that the current proposal was not a proposal for continuation of the DSU
review conducted last year whose deadline expired in July 1999.  This proposal was a new one and
stood on its own merit.  It was the only proposal on the table at present and it had to be taken as a
point of departure.  However, nothing prevented other delegations from making additional proposals
for further improvements of the DSU.  He also recalled that in the midst of the Banana dispute, all
Members seemed to agree that something had to be done about the sequencing problem.
121. The General Council took note of the proposal and the statements, agreed  that the Chairman
would conduct consultations on how best  to move forward on the proposal, and agreed to revert to the
matter at its next meeting in December.
6. Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for
Trade in Services (G/AG/NG/3 and S/CSS/M/4)
122. The Chairman recalled that at its meeting on 3 and 8 May 2000, the General Council had
agreed that the Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and the Council for
Trade in Services be a standing item on the General Council's agenda for the duration of the mandated
negotiations in question.  At its meeting on 17 and 19 July 2000, the General Council had before it the
Reports of the first two Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and the Reports of the first
three Special Sessions of the Council for Trade in Services.  At the present meeting the General
Council had before it two further reports on Special Sessions held by the Committee on Agriculture(G/AG/NG/3) and the Council for Trade in  Services (S/CSS/M/4 and Corr.1).
123. Mr. Bryn (Norway), in the absence of Mr. Ma rchi (Canada), Chairman of the Council for
Trade in Services, said that the Council had so far held five meetings in Special Sessions devoted to
the mandated negotiations under Article XIX of the GATS Agreement.  The next meeting had been
scheduled to take place on 6 December 2000.  Those meetings would be scheduled back-to-back withthe regular meetings of the Council.  They had also  been scheduled along with meetings of subsidiary
bodies in order to facilitate the participation of capital-based officials.  During these meetings, the
Council would be focusing on matters relating to the organization and content of the services
negotiations.
124. At its meeting of 5 and 6 October 2000, the Council had held some very substantive
discussions on the development of guidelines and procedures for the negotiations on the basis of aWT/GC/M/58
Page 24
number of proposals by Members and of a revised note by the Secretariat.  In the context of the
assessment of the trade in services exercise mandated by Article XIX of the GATS, a seminar on
services statistics had been held on 3 October 2000.  Experts from capitals and from other
international organizations had participated in the seminar.
125. The Council had also continued discussions on other matters relating to the negotiations under
Article XIX, including the use of a “cluster” approach in the negotiations and the proposal by a group
of developing-country Members for an Annex to the GATS on Tourism Services.  The Council had
also agreed to organize a seminar on tourism, which would be held early next year.  On clusters,
Members continued to debate the possible use of th is approach in specific commitments negotiations,
on the basis of a note by the Secretariat.
126. Separately from the Article XIX negotiations per se , since the last report of the Council for
Trade in Services, the Council had also held two special meetings on the review of exemptions from
Article II GATS (MFN), and had held its first special meeting on the review of the Annex on Air
Transport Services.  The next meeting on the review of the Air Transport Annex was scheduled to
take place on 4 and 5 December 2000.
127. The services negotiations had been proceeding with a very positive spirit and substantive
work was being done by the Services Council and by its subsidiary bodies, as they approached the endof the first phase of the negotiations and the stocktaking exercise of March 2001.  In particular, the
last Special Session had seen an intensification of the debate on the development of guidelines and
procedures for the negotiations, with an increased number of proposals by Members.  More such
contributions had been promised.
128. Mr. Bryn (Norway), in the absence of Mr. Voto-Bernales (Peru), Chairman of the Committee
on Agriculture, said that the Committee on Agriculture, which met in Special Sessions to conduct the
negotiations for continuing the reform process under Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, had
been required to report directly to the General Council.  As agreed by the Special Session, these
reports had been made to the General Council under the responsibility of the Chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture.  The Chairman's Report, which was now before the General Council(G/AG/NG/3), related to the third Special Session, which had been held on 28-29 September 2000.
Three new negotiating proposals had been presented and examined at that Special Session.  In total,
12 negotiating proposals or submissions had now been presented and examined as part of the first
phase of the negotiations.  There would be full opportunities for delegations to revert to any of these
proposals at future meetings.  In addition, there had been two technical submissions before the
September Special Session, whose presentation and consideration, because of time constraints, had
had to be deferred to the next Special Session.  Once again, delegations proposing to tablesubmissions or proposals were urged to do so as far as possible in advance of the next Special
Session, which would be held on 15-17 November 2000.
129. Five additional background papers had been prepared by the Secretariat at the request of the
Committee and had been made available before the third Special Session.  As noted in the Report,
further background papers would have to be prepared and other follow-up work undertaken by theSecretariat at the request of the Committee.  The Special Session had taken note of a schedule of
provisional dates for Special Session meetings to be  held back-to-back with the regular meetings of
the Committee on Agriculture in 2001.  This schedule would allow additional time for the work of the
Special Session meetings.  Finally, following an exchange of views on a suggestion that regular
reports should be made to the Special Sessions on the work of the TRIPS Council on geographicalindications, the Committee had agreed to refer this matter to the General Council.
130. The representative of Uruguay thanked the Chairmen of the Council for Trade in Services and
the Committee on Agriculture meeting in Special Session for their reports.  He requested that theWT/GC/M/58
Page 25
procedures for reporting on Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and the Council for
Trade in Services be made uniform so that both the reports by Chairpersons of the Committee on
Agriculture and of the Council for Trade in Services as well as the minutes of meetings be circulated
as official documents in advance of General Council meetings.
131. The representative of Argentina requested clarification on the way documents were
distributed and asked whether the Report by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture would be
public from the next day.
132. The Secretary of the General Council said that reports on Special Sessions were circulated by
the responsible Divisions.  He noted that the Report by the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture
had been circulated on 3 October 2000 as an unrestricted document.
133. The representative of Argentina said that his understanding was also that the Report of the
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture had been available to the public from 3 October 2000, and
that the minutes of the Council for Trade in Services would only be public when derestricted.
134. The Chairman said that his understanding was that there were different arrangements for the
Committee on Agriculture and the Council for Trade in Services.  He hoped that the Chairmen of the
two bodies would be available at the next meeting of the General Council to provide the necessary
clarifications.
135. The representative of Argentina said that since the WTO was so concerned with issues of
internal and external transparency, an effort could be made in-house to find a way of circulating these
documents at the same time with the same status.
136. The representative of Brazil supported Argentina.
137. The Chairman said he would raise the matter with the Chairmen of the Council for Trade in
Services and the Committee on Agriculture.
138. The representative of Switzerland drew attention to paragraph 9 of the Report of the
Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture which concerned a proposal by Switzerland that the
Committee on Agriculture should regularly be kept informed of the work undertaken by the TRIPS
Council on protection of geographical indications.  Since it had not been possible to reach a consensuson this proposal, the Committee had decided to refer it to the General Council.  Switzerland now
wished to slightly modify the proposal so that th e General Council would invite the Chairman of the
TRIPS Council to report to the General Council on the work being done on protection of geographical
indications.  This would be a report from the TRIPS Council to the General Council, exactly as was
the case for the bodies responsible for conducting other mandated negotiations under the Marrakesh
Agreement.  He recalled that Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provided that negotiations should
be conducted on geographical indications.  By analogy with the provisions and measures takenregarding the Agriculture and Services negotiations, it seemed logical that the General Council should
be kept regularly informed about progress in these negotiations mandated on extension of protection
of geographical indications.  This would enable those delegations who could not follow all the
subsidiary bodies to be kept informed about progress made in those negotiations.
139. The representative of Mexico expressed concern about the previous point raised by Argentina,
Uruguay and Brazil.  His delegation believed that the procedures followed by the Council for Trade in
Services, and the Committee on Agriculture in Spec ial Session should be the same, particularly with
regard to derestriction of documents.WT/GC/M/58
Page 26
140. The representative of Bulgaria supported the proposal by Switzerland that the TRIPS Council
report to the General Council on geographical indications.  Negotiations on TRIPS were mandated
negotiations under Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and it would only be proper that they be
treated in the same way as other mandated negotiations.
141. The representative of the Czech Republic supported the proposal made by Switzerland.  His
delegation had constantly been promoting the idea that negotiations were due not only on agriculture
and services, but also on geographical indications.  Therefore, he suggested that at the next meeting of
the General Council, a report from the Chairman of the TRIPS Council should be submitted, in
addition to the reports from the Committee on Agriculture and Council for Trade in Services.
142. The representative of Turkey associated his delegation with the statement and the proposal
made by Switzerland.  He also believed that, w ith a view to finding a solution to the issue of
geographical indications in the foreseeable future, the TRIPS Council should keep the GeneralCouncil informed about the developments and progress on this matter.
143. The representative of India said that a number of delegations had a well-known substantial
interest in the area of geographical indications.  His delegation supported the proposal that the
General Council invite the TRIPS Council to report on work on geographical indications, with a view
to monitoring progress in this area.
144. The representative of Bolivia supported the proposal by Switzerland.
145. The representative of the European Communities said that he supported the proposal by
Switzerland.
146. The representative of Mauritius said his country was very comfortable with the Swiss
proposal and supported it.
147. The representative of Argentina said that he could not support the proposal made by
Switzerland, since he did not have sufficient time to  analyse it, nor did he have enough information on
the subject.  However, in his view, there was a clear difference between mandated negotiations on
agriculture and services with their respective time-frames, and negotiations that would take place
pursuant to Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  If there was to be a report, or at a given time areport was requested, it could not be done under the same chapter as mandated negotiations.
148. The representative of the United States said that her delegation was also taken by surprise by
the Swiss proposal, which had been made without prior notice.  The process of decision-making in the
General Council had been designed to ensure that all Members were given adequate notice before a
meeting that a proposal would be made so that it could be considered in advance of the meeting.  This
had been a policy that was relevant not just to the matter being proposed, but to all action taken.  The
United States would be pleased to consider the issue and make comments if and when Switzerlandwished to put the item on the agenda of a meeting.
149. The Chairman noted that the proposal by Switzerland was of a procedural nature.
150. The representative of the Democratic Republic of Congo supported the proposal by
Switzerland.  He said that the problem of geographical indications had lead to a very difficult debate
during the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and the Swiss delegation was right toremind Members of this problem.
151. The representative of New Zealand shared other delegation's concerns about the proposal by
Switzerland and was also conscious that the minutes of the TRIPS Council were made widelyWT/GC/M/58
Page 27
available to all Members.  Moreover, Members had received the Annual Report of the TRIPS Council
to the General Council.  He said that the matter at hand was perhaps more than a procedural question
and he would certainly need more time to consider the matter which was potentially of a substantive
nature.
152. The Chairman proposed that further consultations be conducted on the Swiss proposal.
153. The representative of Mexico said that he did not oppose holding further consultations but he
shared the views expressed by the United States and others that the matter, for procedural reasons, did
not fall under this item of the agenda.
154. The representative of Chile supported the statements by New Zealand, the United States and
Mexico.
155. The representative of India said that his country could go along with the decision to hold
consultations.  However, the Chairman was perhaps handicapped to an extent, since paragraph 9 did
not fully reflect what happened in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.  Some
Members expressed the concern that there should not be a report by the TRIPS Council to the Special
Session on the Committee on Agriculture as this would establish a linkage between the two areas of
work.  The Swiss proposal was intended to avoid that linkage and consultations could be carried on it.
With regard to the statement by the United States about procedural issues, India did not think that theSwiss proposal was a major substantive issue.
156. The representative of Switzerland said that the Swiss proposal was indeed a new one and he
had not known he was going to make it until that afternoon.  However, he did not feel that this
proposal required detailed preparation.  Members had the right to think about it, and future
consultations would enable them to move forward on the subject.  He did not deny that the minutes ofthe meetings of the TRIPS Council were available, but this was also true for other WTO bodies,
including the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and the Council for Trade in Services.
He also noted that all Members did not have the same understanding of the mandate that was
enshrined in Article 24.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  However, the first sentence of Article 24.1,
stipulated that "Members agree to enter into negotiations aimed at increasing the protection ofindividual geographical indications under Articl e 23", a provision which referred to mandated
negotiations.  The fact that the TRIPS Council could inform the General Council on the discrepancies
that existed in the interpretation of that mandate, could also be beneficial to all Members, particularly
those which could not follow as closely as they wanted all the work of the WTO.
157. The General Council took note of the Reports by the Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in
Services and the Committee on Agriculture and of the statements made at the meeting, and agreed that
further consultations be held on the proposal made by Switzerland.
7. Date and venue of the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference
(a) Statement by the Chairman
158. The Chairman drew attention to Article IV of the WTO Agreement, which provided that
"There shall be a Ministerial Conference composed of representatives of all Members, which shall
meet at least once every two years."  In accordance with that provision a Ministerial Conference
should be convened in 2001.  He therefore believed that the General Council should seek to take a
decision on the date and venue of the next Ministerial Conference as soon as possible.  To this end he
proposed that:WT/GC/M/58
Page 28
(a) the General Council agree to seek to take a decision on the date and venue of the next
Ministerial Conference at its end-of-year meeting on 7 and 8 December 2000;
(b) the General Council take note with appreciation of the invitation of the Government
of Qatar to host the Conference, and invite any other Member Government wishing tohost the Conference to so inform the General Council in time for a final decision in
December;  and
(c) the General Council invite the Secretariat to prepare a factual report to the General
Council on the conference facilities which are available in each proposed venue.
These reports, which should provide a detailed factual description of the facilities and
logistics available for the organization of the event, would serve as a basis for a finaldecision on the venue.
159. In this respect he informed Members that the Government of Qatar had already invited the
Secretariat to visit the conference facilities avai lable in Doha and proposed that the report by the
Secretariat be circulated for information of Members.
3
160. The representative of Qatar recalled that his Government had officially offered to host the
Fourth Ministerial Conference and had communicated officially with many Members to seek their
support for this offer.  Following an invitation by his authorities, the Secretariat had visited Doha to
assess the available facilities.  On 9 October 2000, Qatar had officially informed the Secretariat of the
facilities available for hosting the Conference and had asked the Secretariat to distribute thisinformation to Members (WT/GC/33).  As the document indicated all required facilities were
available with the exception of accommodation.  The number of hotel rooms and furnished apartment
rooms amounted to 2,824.  However, in consultation with the Secretariat it appeared that the number
of required rooms to accommodate the number of expected participants at the Ministerial Conference
could reach up to 6,000.  Doha could not accommodate that number of participants and it thereforeremained for the General Council to take appropriate action.
161. The Chairman thanked Qatar for its offer to host the Conference, but understood the
constraints imposed by such an event.
162. The representative of Pakistan said his country was grateful for Qatar's invitation.  He
understood that the delegation of Qatar had been in contact with the Secretariat for a considerable
length of time and it was therefore puzzled that Qatar had only recently learnt of the number of people
that would be expected to attend the WTO Conference.   He sought clarification with regard to the
composition of the number of 6,000, namely whether this number included delegates, Secretariat,
press, and any other possible participants.  He  did not think a potential host country should be
expected to cater to all possible participants, and it would be very difficult to find a host if that was
the requirement.  He therefore asked the Secretariat to clarify how it had reached the number of
6,000 persons.  Then one could see if delegations could be asked to reduce the number of participants,which perhaps could even facilitate consensus at the Conference and reduce expenses.  He suggested
that the process be made easy for Qatar, rather than making it difficult for them and for the WTO.
163. The Director-General said that the Secretariat had produced a list of needs in July 2000 and
the figure of 6,000, which was a major reduction as compared to the figure of 7,000 in Seattle, seemed
appropriate.  The report by the Secretariat was not yet available, but it would be circulated shortly.4
He paid tribute to Qatar for its courtesy and for its work with the WTO officials.
                                                     
3 The statement by the Chairman was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/34.
4 Subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/35.WT/GC/M/58
Page 29
164. The representative of the European Communities thanked Qatar for its offer to host the Fourth
Ministerial Conference.  While he agreed with the three points made by the Chairman, he did not
think there was any need for the date of the Conference to be fixed by the end of the year.  There was
however a need to establish the venue for the Conference, and the Community would collaborate
wherever possible to help choose the venue.
165. The representative of Brazil said that the Secretariat could perhaps give an indication of the
number of staff it would need at the Fourth Ministerial Conference, and an indication of participants
that had attended the Geneva Ministerial Conference.  That would be a good basis for assessing the
number of participants expected at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
166. The representative of Venezuela said that in light of what had happened in Seattle, one could
draw the conclusion that the venue and functioning of the Conference might not have been the most
appropriate.  He felt that the Secretariat should not carry all the weight of assessing the venue of theConference, and therefore suggested that the preliminary assessment of the venue be carried out
through a mechanism which would also include some Members, and that the final assessment of the
venue be carried out with the Members.  It w ould be important if the Chairman of the Budget
Committee took part in the preparation of the assessment and accompanied the Secretariat in
discussions with possible host countries.  He felt that Members should have the opportunity ofknowing the different features of the venue, and a report that would be supported by them.  The best
way would be to appoint an assessment committee, or give the task of this assessment to the
Chairman of the Budget Committee together with the Secretariat.
167. The representative of the United States thanked Qatar for its offer and the Secretariat for its
assessment.  She agreed with all three of the poi nts made by the Chairman as there was a need to
seriously start thinking about place and time of the next Conference, and how to move forward.
168. The representative of Uruguay thanked Qatar for its invitation and supported it.  He agreed
with the three points made by the Chairman and said that the venue and date were equally important
since the host country must know when the Conference was going to take place.  Uruguay had been
the first developing country to organize a conference of this nature, and it could not have done sowithout knowing in advance the date of the meeting.
169. The Chairman said that the assessment of rooms and other facilities, as indicated by the
Secretariat, had been made on the basis of previous experience.  Pakistan had alluded to a possibility
of reducing the size of the Conference.  This would depend, at least to a certain extent, on what the
Conference was expected to achieve and on its agenda.  Therefore, Members could have a substantive
debate on what they foresaw to be the outcome of the Conference, as this aspect could be decisive in
discussing the size of the whole operation.  He no ted the support for the points he had made and felt
that the General Council would need to revert to  this matter at its December meeting.  In the
meantime, both the Secretariat and the Members would need to consider what sort of Conference was
required and what the entire set-up would be.  He  would conduct consultations on this matter before
the December meeting.
170. The General Council took note of the statements, agreed  to the Chairman's proposal and
agreed to revert to this matter at its December meeting.WT/GC/M/58
Page 30
8. Discussion paper on the functioning of the WTO system
(a) Statement by the European Communities
171. The representative of the European Communities, speaking under "Other Business", recalled
that the Chairman had invited Members to come fo rward with submissions relating to the issues of
transparency and functioning of the WTO system.  Discussions on these important matters had to beinitiated and the Community's paper (WT/GC/W/412) was as a starting-point.  In the Community's
view, particular attention should be given to how to  foster the transparency and effectiveness of the
organization so as to ensure real participation by all Members.  The Community attached great
importance to the issue of inclusiveness.  Decisions relating to internal transparency, however, should
not hamper the organization's efficiency.  The Community's discussion paper did not envisage
changes that would alter the basic principles of the functioning of the WTO nor the consensus rule but
proposed practical reforms that could include the following elements.  First, measures to improvedecision-making, including issues relating to the organization and functions of informal consultations.
In this regard, the role and types of informal consultations should be clarified and enhanced.  A
consultative group could be established to advise and determine the role of the Director-General as
well as the role of the Chairpersons and of the S ecretariat.  Second, measures to foster the flow of
information and participation by all Members.  This point, which was related to the first one, wouldbe beneficial in particular to delegations with limited staff and delegations with no representation in
Geneva.  In this connection, the Community supported the Director-General's initiatives in this field.
Third, measures to improve the functioning of Ministerial Conferences and the General Council.  In
concluding, he said that the Chairman should not wait for practical improvements in all areas before
implementing them.  His delegation was looking forward to studying the US paper on external
transparency and to participating in the consultations on internal and external transparency, which
would be held in the fall as announced by the Chairman.
172. The General Council took note of the statement.
9. Submission on external transparency
(a) Statement by the United States
173. The representative of the United States, speaking under "Other Business", welcomed the
Chairman 's intention to hold informal consultations on external transparency.  Progress on this issue
was vital to the future of the WTO and her delegation looked forward to engaging constructively with
other Members thereon.  At the July General Council meeting, Members had been invited to provide
written submissions to help in initiating dialog ue.  The US paper (WT/GC/W/413/Rev.1) addressed
external transparency from many perspectives, including access to documents, making the WTO moreopen to the public, dispute settlement, enhanced use of the internet, and sharing national experiences
with various means of maintaining dialogue with the public on the WTO.  Her delegation would
welcome Members' reactions to the US paper, looked forward to studying the European Communities'
paper and hoped that as many other delegations as possible would also provide written inputs to help
ensure that all perspectives were understood and received the attention they deserved.
174. The General Council took note of the statement.WT/GC/M/58
Page 31
10. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Bhutan
(a) Announcement by the Chairman
175. The Chairman, speaking under "Other Busine ss", informed the General Council that
Mr. Kreid (Austria) had agreed to chair the Working Party on the Accession of Bhutan.
176. The General Council took note of this information.
__________