RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/WPDR/M/3
18 January 2000
(00-0201)
Working Party on Domestic Regulation
REPORT ON THE MEETING HELD ON 19 OCTOBER 1999
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Working Party on Domestic Regulation held a meeting on 19 October, 1999.  The agenda
for the meeting is contained in Airgram WTO/AIR/1192.  The main item on the agenda was
discussion of the Secretariat background Note, entitled Application of the Necessity Test: Issues for
Consideration , together with the discussion and adoption of the annual report of the Working Party to
the Council for Trade in Services.
(a) Discussion of necessity, transparency, equivalence and international standards
2. Discussion of the informal Secretariat No te on necessity provisions, circulated as
Job No. 5929 dated 8 October, 1999, was held in informal mode.  Members also made comments on
the paper from Australia, presented at the previous WPDR meeting (circulated as S/WPDR/W/1,
19 July 1999), concerning the work on domestic regulation.
3. The Chairperson summarized the interventions, stating that Members had a detailed and
comprehensive discussion.  The Secretariat paper had helped to focus the discussions, and served as
the basis for most interventions.
4. Regarding specific paragraphs of the Secretariat Note, the Chairperson noted that Members
had stated the two points made in paragraph 13 were important (i.e. that nearly all of the legitimateobjectives specified in the TBT and SPS Agreements are already covered under GATS Article XIV,
therefore, the task of the Working Party might be to focus primarily on new policy objectives
unrelated to these existing provisions).  Furthe r review of Article XIV aspects, however, could be
considered.
5. On paragraph 14, there was much discussion, especially of the "third aspect" of the necessity
test, as suggested in footnote 7, that a measure that has the effect of restricting trade can be considered
"necessary" only if there is no alternative measure less disruptive of trade which a Member may
reasonably be expected to employ to achieve the same policy objective.  Members should reflect on
this point, the Chairperson noted.    
6. The comment in paragraph 15 that future dispute settlement cases were likely to be resolved
on a "case-by-case" basis was also regarded as important.
7. Members also extensively discussed the issue of potential additional legitimate objectives.
Universal service was given as a further example of a potential legitimate objective, and it was noted
that the examples presented in the Secretariat Note were meant as a list of options only.  Some
Members had advised caution regarding these additional examples, some stated that the focus should
instead be on legitimate objectives of a more general nature, while others thought further discussion
of such examples was needed.  The potential role of international standards was also noted, but it was
not considered the immediate focus.S/WPDR/M/3
Page 2
8. Concerning the Australian paper, the scope section merited further consideration at the next
meeting of the Working Party.
9. The Chairperson noted that Members indicated that greater specificity would now be required
in the work of the Working Party and, in this regard, there may be written submissions from
Members.  Regarding transparency, this area would be more of an "example driven" exercise, with
information provided by Members.  There was also a  reminder by some Members of relationship
between GATS Article VI and market access, as previously discussed in connection with the
accountancy disciplines.  In respect to the suggestion by a Member that the Secretariat prepare
additional papers on necessity and transparency, the Chairperson said this should occur after Members
had provided their own ideas and suggestions.
(b) Discussion of procedures for secretariat consultations with international professional
organizations
10. The second item on the agenda was the discussion of procedures for Secretariat consultations
with relevant international organizations in professional services.  The Chairperson asked for
Members' input as to whether or not the Secretariat should be requested to draw up a listing of suchorganizations, then opened the floor for comments.
11. The delegation of Canada said that the exercise could possibly result in a very long list of
relevant organizations.  They expressed concern that the Secretariat listing might result in a "top-
down" consultative process, stating that Members might not prefer to consult domestically with some
professional services organizations.
12. The delegate of the United States said he was also worried about the potential length of the
listing, and preferred that Members suggest the organi zations to be included.  The question of whether
to consult with international regulatory associations as well was raised.
13. The delegate from Hong Kong, China said he did not understand fully the point made by
Canada.  He noted that Member-driven proposals were fine, but none had yet been forthcoming and
the Working Party could not wait too long.  The question of whether to consult with international
regulatory associations was an important issue to be addressed.
14. The delegation of Argentina said that the list should be based on proposals by Members,
e.g. Australia had earlier mentioned some examples.  The Secretariat should be asked only to check
whether organizations suggested by Members complied with the required criteria.
15. The delegation of Canada said that the listing should include professional organizations in
engineering, architecture, law, land surveying, commercial appraisal and actuarial services.  There
were sensitivities about including health-related professions.
16. The Chairperson concluded by stating that more discussion was needed on the question of the
scope of the Secretariat consultations.  There was also the question of whether to consult with
international regulatory associations.   The listing of international associations should be Member-
driven, and therefore the Secretariat would wait, and not distribute a list before the next meeting.
(c) Annual report to the Council for Trade in Services
17. Specific comments were made on the draft text by the delegations of Argentina, Canada,  the
European Communities, Hong Kong, China , India , New Zealand , Pakistan,  the United States  and
Switzerland.S/WPDR/M/3
Page 3
18. As amended, the annual report to the Council for Trade in Services was approved by
Members.
(d) Dates of Next Meeting
19. The Chairperson said that the date of the next meeting (to be held in the new year) would be
determined on the basis of consultations with delegations.
__________