RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/C/M/42
9 May 2000
(00-1883)
Council for Trade in Services
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 APRIL 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Council for Trade in Services held a meeting on 14 April 2000.  The agenda for the
meeting is contained in document WTO/AIR/1277.
2. Under Other Business, the Chairman said that he would make a statement concerning the
review of the Understanding on Accounting Rates in Basic Telecommunications.  The representative
of Dominica requested that an item be added concerning his government’s ratification of the Fourth
Protocol.
3. The representative of Australia informed Members that her delegation and the delegation of
Singapore had prepared a paper, which they would pr esent for discussion at the Special Session of the
Council.  Likewise, the representative of Arge ntina, speaking on behalf of MERCOSUR, informed
Members that MERCOSUR had prepared a paper for discussion at the Special Session based on the
proposal by Australia and Singapore.
4. The Chairman proposed that the agenda be adopted as circulated, with the addition of the
items raised under Other Business.
5. The Council so agreed.
A. REVIEW OF ARTICLE II (MFN) EXEMPTIONS
6. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had held a discussion on how to
conduct the review of MFN exemptions.  The conc lusion of that discussion was that, although
agreements had emerged on some points, informal consultations were necessary in order to finalise
how the review would be organised.  Accordingly,  an informal meeting of the Council had been
convened on 29 March 2000, at which further discussions took place on matters such as dates for
meetings, deadlines for submissions of written questions, whether such questions should be answered
in writing or orally, how the workload should be divided between meetings, whether the discussions
in the review should be conducted in formal or informal mode and how such discussions should be
recorded.  He said that those informal discussions had helped to clarify the way forward, and anagreement seemed to have emerged around a number of  elements.  First, the Council would hold two
sessions before the summer break, the first one on 29 and 30 May and the second one on 6 and 7 July.
Both sets of dates were closely linked to the provisionally scheduled “services weeks”, in order to
facilitate the participation of capital-based experts.  Second, all MFN exemptions would be divided
between the two sessions.  Different ways had been proposed for such a division, but it seemedgenerally acceptable that the order of the Secretariat sectoral compilation be followed, and that the
first session address all exemptions up to, and including, distribution services and the second one all
exemptions thereafter.  Third, Members wishing to submit written questions would address them to
Members concerned at least three weeks prior to each of the two sessions, i.e. 8 May for the first
session and 15 June for the second one.  Written questions would also be submitted to the Secretariat,preferably in electronic form, for circulation to other Members.  The responding Members would beS/C/M/42
Page 2
free to respond either in writing or orally at the meeting.  The possibility of oral questions being
addressed at the meeting would not be precluded.  Fourth, discussions would be conducted in formal
sessions of the Council.  However, the possibility  of switching to informal mode could also be
considered if Members so wished.  For formal discussion, reports would be prepared by the
Secretariat in the form of minutes in the usual wa y.  While not wishing to foreclose the opportunity
for further discussions, the Chairman hoped that Members could finalise the arrangements for thereview.
7. The representative of Panama found the Chairman’s outline acceptable, but wondered how
discussions in informal mode could be recorded.  A representative of the Secretariat explained that, in
the past, a summary record of informal discussions  had been prepared by the Chairman under his own
responsibility.  The representative of Panama explained that his concern was that the possibility of
recording informal discussions be retained.
8. The representative of Japan echoed the concern expressed by the representative of Panama.
He supported the Chairman's suggestion that written questions be submitted three weeks in advance of
the review meetings, and, in this respect, strongly encouraged Members to provide answers to such
questions as far as possible in advance of the meetings, to promote a more fruitful discussion.
9. The representative of Brazil wondered if the dates for the first session of the review could be
changed to early June, as her delegation was involved in two regional processes on services at the end
of May.  She then noted that the two compilations of exemptions prepared by the Secretariat in
documents Job No. 6116 and 1551 did not contain the exemption listed by Brazil during the extended
negotiations on basic telecommunications and requested that a corrigendum be issued accordingly.  A
representative of the Secretariat explained that the compilations did not contain exemptions annexed
to the Fourth and Fifth Protocols for Members who had not yet accepted those Protocols, which was
Brazil’s case with respect to the Fourth Protocol.  He added that the Secretariat’s exclusion of such
exemptions implied no judgement on their validity.  Th e representative of Brazil said that, in spite of
the fact that her authorities had not yet ratified the Fourth Protocol, the relevant exemption should be
included in the compilations, as it had been listed pursuant to the Annex on Negotiations on Basic
Telecommunications.  Article 1(a) of that Annex stated that Article II and the Annex on Article IIExemptions, including the requirement to list in the Annex any measures inconsistent with most-
favoured-nation treatment that a Member wished  to maintain, entered into force for basic
telecommunications on the date of implementation of the results of those negotiations.  For Brazil,
that date was February 1998, date in which the Protocol formally entered into force.  She observed
that Article 1(a) extended the deadline for listing MFN exemptions specified in the Annex on MFN
exemptions, so that Members would not have had to list exemptions for basic telecommunications
before the conclusions of those negotiations.  She added that Article II, the Annex on Article IIExemptions and the Annex on Negotiations on Basic Telecommunications did in no way formally
establish a link between the scheduling of specific commitments in a sector and the possibility of
listing an exemption;  Members were indeed free to list exemptions for sectors in which they had not
undertaken any commitments.  She therefore insisted that Brazil’s exemption be included, because,
even though the compilations prepared by the Secr etariat had no legal value, no inference about the
validity of the exemption should be drawn from its exclusion from the compilations  The
representative of the Secretariat proposed that the Secretariat issue an addendum to document Job
No. 1551, which would include all exemptions annexed to the Fourth and Fifth Protocols for thoseMembers who had not yet accepted those Protocols.  It would be made clear that the addendum
carried no implication as to the legal status of those exemptions.
10. The representative of Norway agreed with the Chairman’s introduction.  He said that the
Japanese suggestion that comments to questions be prepared before the review meetings was useful
and merited consideration.S/C/M/42
Page 3
11. The representative of Korea suggested that, in order to use time efficiently, Members
concentrate on those exemptions which were economically meaningful.
12. The representative of Mexico said that, at the previous meeting, Members had converged
towards leaving open the possibility that a third session be scheduled, if necessary.  He noted that the
review had to abide by the mandate in paragraph 4(a) and (b) of the Annex on MFN exemptions, andhence it was important that Members decide on the date of the next review.  As concerned the record
of the discussion, he suggested that the minutes identify which delegations had taken the floor and
that some concluding report be issued, identifying those areas of consensus and of divergence.
13. The representative of Chile endorsed the Chairman’s proposal.  On Mexico’s comment that a
third session of the review be scheduled if necessary, he suggested that such a decision be taken at the
second session.
14. Concluding the discussion on this item, the Ch airman said that the Council would hold two
sessions for the review;  the need to schedule a third one would be evaluated after the first two
sessions, taking into account the workload of meetings in services weeks.  As concerned Brazil’s
difficulty with the dates he had suggested, he was sympathetic, but noted that any date he proposed
would be problematic for some delegation and therefore decided to maintain 29 and 30 May for the
first session.
15. It was so agreed.
B. REVIEW OF AIR TRANSPORT SERVICES UNDER PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE 
ANNEX
16. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had discussed the organisation of
the mandated review of air transport.  There was general agreement that the review was quite
substantive and required adequate preparation by delegations and by the Secretariat.  There was also
agreement that the review should be conducte d in special meetings of the Council with the
participation, where possible, of capital-based experts.  At the end of the informal meeting on 29
march, there seemed to be a general preference for scheduling two special meetings of the Council for
this review in 2000.  While some Members wished to have the first of such meetings before thesummer, there was a slight preference for holding both sessions after the summer break, around
September and December.  He had sensed that the preference was a slight one, but ventured that it
would make good sense to give delegations and the Secretariat additional time to prepare and
therefore proposed 28 and 29 September for the first session and 30 November and 1 December for
the second one.  In the first session, the Council woul d focus on the review of developments in the air
transport sector, and in the second on the review of the operation of the Annex.  It was also agreed
that the Secretariat would update the information it had previously prepared in documents S/C/W/59and S/C/W/129.  Several delegations had also stressed that the concerns of developing countries must
be taken into account as directed by the General Council for all mandated reviews.  As with the
previous agenda item, while not wishing to foreclose the opportunity for further discussions, he hoped
that Members could finalise the arrangements for the review.
17. The representative of Colombia supported the Chairman’s introduction and reiterated his
interest in the Secretariat carrying out background work, which would include a paper explaining the
background to the Annex on Air Transport Services.  The representative of Ecuador also endorsed the
Chairman’s outline.  He referred to the reco mmendations of the UNCTAD Expert Group which had
met in July 1999, as a basis to examine the application of the GATS to air transport and the
implications for developing countries.  He stressed the importance of looking at air transport inrelation to Article IV and suggested that the Secretariat analyse the issue in detail.  A representative ofS/C/M/42
Page 4
the Secretariat said that the impact of the Annex on air transport services on developing countries
could be analysed further if the Council so wished, but that such an analysis required time.
18. The representative of New Zealand said that he would have preferred to start the review
before the summer break, but was prepared to be flexible and agree to September and
November/December dates in view of the heavy workload.  On structure, he supported the first
meeting reviewing developments in the sector and the second one the operation of the Annex.
However, he felt that Members could agree on the range of issues to be discussed at each meeting in
greater detail, and in this respect drew attention to the informal paper presented by his delegation,
circulated as document Job No. 753.  He also recalled earlier suggestions that the Secretariat might
identify such issues, and wondered if the Secretariat had given any thought to the matter.  As
concerned background material for the review, he supported the idea that the Secretariat update
documents S/C/W/59 and S/C/W/129, but noted the importance of Members themselves providing
information on recent developments in the air transport sector.
19. The Chairman informed Members that the Secretariat had produced an internal document
containing a list of possible issues for discussion.
20. The representative of the European Communities echoed New Zealand’s comments on the
suggested dates for the review meetings.  On struct ure, he said that no strict dividing line should
separate the agenda of the two sessions, and that developments in the sector and the operation of theAnnex could be addressed in both sessions.  As concerned a more focused list of issues for discussion,
he was interested in seeing and discussing the list produced by the Secretariat.
21. The representative of Turkey said that her delegation attached great importance to the review,
as a means to achieving greater liberalization in the sector.  She suggested that ground-handling and
catering services be included in the scope of the review.
22. The representative of Switzerland supported the Chairman’s outline and the European
Communities’ suggestion that no strict separation be drawn between discussions on developments in
the sector and the operation of the Annex.  He proposed that the Secretariat use the elements outlined
in paragraph 8 of the informal paper by New Zealand, as well as the items which had been suggested
by the European Communities, namely ancillary services, and notably ground handling, leasing andcatering, air cargo, charter flights, ownership and control and traffic rights, including transit and
technical landing, to prepare a checklist of issues which would help to structure future work.
23. The representative of Canada was in favour of the Secretariat updating background
documents S/C/W/59 and S/C/W/129.  However, she stressed that it was up to Members, and not to
the Secretariat, to raise issues for discussion.
24. The representative of Korea supported the Chairman’s introduction and New Zealand’s
proposal that a list of points for discussion be devised for the first session.  He suggested that the issue
of competition, as had been brought up by Japan, and the questions raised in Poland’s submission, be
added to such a list.
25. The representative of the Dominican Republic asked if the Chairman’s introduction could be
circulated in writing.  He concurred with his outline, and endorsed the comments made by the
representative of Korea.  He suggested that Members take into account the conclusions agreed by theUNCTAD Expert Meeting on air transport, which were also reproduced in document S/C/W/129.
The recommendations of the Expert Meeting were not binding, but had been endorsed by high level
UNCTAD bodies.   
26. The representative of Australia supported the Chairman’s introduction.  She concurred that
some inter-related elements existed between the ex amination of developments in the air transportS/C/M/42
Page 5
sector and of the operation of the Annex, and was sympathetic towards their joint consideration.  She
suggested that the first review meeting address not only developments in the sector over the past five
years, but focus also on trends in the sector over the next five years.  She agreed that the Secretariat
update its background notes, but also noted the usefulness of Members’ own contributions.
27. The representative of Brazil supported the suggested dates for meetings, but said that the
agenda of the first meeting should be limited to developments in the sector, as mandated by the
Annex.  He agreed to the Secretariat updating its background material, but stressed that the suggested
list of items should not prejudice Members’ positions;  in this regard, his delegation still had
reservations about the matrix proposed by New Zealand.
28. The representative of Japan endorsed the Chairman’s outline as concerned the number of
meetings and the update of the Secretariat notes.  He expressed his delegation’s concern with the
proposed checklist of issues, which should not prejudice the discussion itself, as the review processwas intended to discuss developments in the air transport sector.
29. On the agenda for the two review meetings, the representative of Hong Kong, China stated
that Members should keep to the understanding reached, whereby the first meeting would review
developments in the air transport sector and the second one the operation of the Annex;  delegations
remained nonetheless free to raise any different points.  He agreed to the Secretariat updating itsbackground notes and compiling a checklist of issues, as suggested by New Zealand, but stressed such
a compilation had to be factual, contain no comments or judgements and not prejudice Members’
positions.
30. The representative of Mexico endorsed the Chairman’s introduction.  He requested that the
review follow and be confined to the mandate contained in the Annex.  He reiterated that the review
was distinct from the negotiations and its impact on developing countries be addressed.
31. The representative of Hungary agreed with the suggested dates for meetings and with
proposal that the Secretariat update its background notes.  He supported the idea of not drawing a
strict demarcation between the discussions of developments in the sector and of the operation of the
Annex.  He also found the idea of a checklist of issues attractive, but echoed Hong Kong, China’s
concern that it be strictly factual.
32. The representative of the United States endorsed the Chairman’s introduction.  He sought
clarification from the representative of Korea on whether he was suggesting that the Secretariat
respond to the questions raised in the Polish submission;  he felt that this was for Members only and
that it would be inappropriate for the Secretariat.  The representative of Korea explained that, indeed,
he intended that Members, and not the Secretariat, answer such questions.
33. The representative of Morocco concurred with the Chairman’s suggested timetable.  She
stressed that the review was distinct from the negotiations and that its impact on development should
be borne in mind.
34. Summing up the discussion on this item, the Chairman said that Members agreed on the
suggested timetable for the review and that several delegations had also stressed the importance of
analysing the impact of the Annex on development.  He noted Australia’s suggestion that the review
address recent developments in the sector and future trends.  On the separation between the agendas
for the two meetings, he suggested that Members k eep to the general understanding that the first
meeting deal with developments in the sector and the second one with the operation of the Annex, but
allow sufficient flexibility for Members to refer to other issues if they so wished.  As concerned the
checklist by the Secretariat, he stressed that any list would be factual and would not prejudiceMembers’ positions.S/C/M/42
Page 6
35. A representative of the Secretariat explained that, at its informal meeting of 29 March, the
Council had given no remit to the Secretariat, but had suggested that a list of issues for discussion
might be drawn up.  The Secretariat had therefore produced an internal draft list of issues from which
Members could choose the ones they wanted to discuss.
36. The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat complete its internal draft and then circulate it to
Members as a guidance to finalise the agenda for the first review meeting.
37. It was so agreed.
C. PROCEDURES FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF RECTIFICATIONS OR
IMPROVEMENTS TO SCHEDULES OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS – DRAFT
DECISION BY THE COUNCIL
38. The Chairman drew Members’ attention to document S/CSC/W/26/Rev.1 and document
S/C/W/133, which contained, respectively, the Draft Procedures for the Certification of Rectifications
or Improvements to Schedules of Specific Commitments and a draft Decision by the Council adoptingsuch procedures.  The procedures had been prepared by the Committee on Specific Commitments to
replace the ad hoc procedure which had been used until then in situations where a Member wished to
introduce a technical modification to its schedule or improve its commitments.  The Committee had
already examined all the issues involved and approved the text on 11 April 2000.  He invited the
Chairman of the Committee on Specific Commitments to present the draft procedures and theproposed decision.
39. Mr. Uyama of Japan, Chairman of the Committee on Specific Commitments, informed the
Council that the Committee had adopted the text of the Procedures for the Certification of
Rectifications or Improvements to Schedules of Specific Commitments at its meeting on 11 April
2000.  The adopted text appeared in document S/ CSC/W/26/Rev.1.  The purpose of the procedures
was to set out a process for certifications when Members intended to introduce modifications to
schedules which consisted of new commitments, improvements to existing ones or rectifications or
changes of a purely technical character that did not alter the scope or the substance of the existing
commitments.  On behalf of the Committee, he propos ed that the Council for Trade in Services adopt
the procedures.  He also thanked his predecessors, and in particular the former Chairman, Mr.Marchetti of Argentina.
40. The Chairman proposed that the Council adopt the draft decision contained in S/C/W/133.
41. The Council so agreed.
D. DRAFT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WTO AND THE ITU
42. The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting on 22 March 1999, the Services Council had
approved the text of the co-operation agreement between the WTO and the ITU, which was contained
in document S/C/9.  Subsequently, the text was forw arded to the ITU for consideration by its Council,
which had suggested further changes to the agreement.  The ITU Secretariat had submitted a revised
text to the WTO Secretariat, containing several amendments reflecting the suggested changes, which
had been subject to consultations between the two Se cretariats and was contained in the informal note
Job No. 2118, dated 2 April 2000.
43. A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that the revised text had been discussed
with the ITU Secretariat, but that the changes were the ITU’s proposals.
44. A representative of the ITU Secretariat illustrated the background to the draft agreement.
Various ITU bodies had stressed the importance of entering into a cooperation agreement with theS/C/M/42
Page 7
WTO, and that request had been particularly strengthened at the World Telecommunications Policy
Forum in 1998.  He explained that the text which had been approved by the Services Council in
March 1999 had been submitted to the ITU Council annual meeting in July 1999 and had received
wide support.  The revised draft reflected a number of editorial comments and a few other concerns.
The additions to the Preamble had been introduced to reflect, similarly to what was contained in otheragreements the ITU had concluded, the respective mandates of the WTO and the ITU, and the
language had been drawn from texts and instruments of the two organizations.  The changes to
paragraphs 5 and 6, and relative commentary had been introduced to reflect further examples of areas
of co-operation between the ITU and the WTO.  Para graph 9 had been altered to ensure that the ITU
was well-informed about dispute settlement procedures concerning telecommunications.  The change
in paragraph 10 reflected the fact that consultation procedures might vary for each organization, and
were carried out on the basis of own internal instruments.  Finally, paragraph 13 had been modified tocapture the procedures followed in the ITU to arrive at an agreement.  In fact, the ITU Council meets
once a year and can only come to a provisional agreement;  it is the Plenipotentiary Conference,
which meets once every four year, that grants final approval.  He informed Members that the ITU
Council would next meet on July 18, for two weeks, and hoped that a text could be submitted then for
approval on a provisional basis.
45. The Chairman sought Members’ comments on the suggested changes.  He hoped that the text
could be amended, refined and approved by the Council at its May meeting, so that the draft
agreement could be submitted to the ITU Council at its meeting in July.
46. The representative of Australia expressed concern with respect to two issues:  first, she noted
a lack of equivalence between the ITU and WTO obligation to invite each others’ Secretariats in
paragraphs 3 and 4;  second, paragraph 12 contained no provision for the handling of on-going co-
operation at the time the draft agreement might terminate.
47. The representative of India echoed Australia’s first concern.  He also noted that the
commentary to paragraph 4 specified that the WTO was not listed among the organizations invited to
the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and Council, and wondered if this provision could be changed ifthe agreement was adopted.  On making relevant dispute settlement reports available to the ITU at the
time of their circulation to WTO Members, he soug ht clarification on when they were made normally
available to other inter-governmental organizations.  He also noted the importance of WTO Members
being informed about the implementation of the agreement, and wondered why paragraph 10 had been
amended.
48. The representative of the European Communities endorsed the comments by Australia and
India on the imbalance in paragraphs 3 and 4 and the WTO being invited to the ITU Council and
Plenipotentiary Conference and by India on the distribution of dispute settlement reports.
49. The representative of Japan also echoed Australia’s and India’s concern about imbalances.
As concerned the change in paragraph 10, he stressed the importance of the WTO Secretariat keeping
the Membership informed about the implementation of the agreement.  He also noted that a
discrepancy existed between paragraph 13 and the relative commentary, and sought clarification onthe issue.
50. The representative of Panama echoed the comments made by Australia and India.  He sought
clarification on whether the verb “may” in the commentary to paragraph 6 was intended to be
exclusive or illustrative;  his delegation’s view was that it should be illustrative.
51. The representative of New Zealand supported th e comments by Australia and India.  He then
noted that the new paragraphs added to the Preamble made it considerably longer and was in favour of
a shorter formulation.  As concerned the amendment to paragraph 11, he said that while his delegationS/C/M/42
Page 8
was comfortable with the idea that the agreement could be reviewed, the reference to disputes and
negotiations raised concern.  He also noted that the commentary to paragraph 11 had not been
changed to reflect the amendment in the paragraph itself.
52. The representative of Ecuador sought clarification about the reference, in paragraph 9, to the
specified limits within which information was to be used, and wondered what such limited were in the
case of the agreement under discussion.
53. The representative of Mexico supported the comments made by previous speakers and said
that his delegation would be providing its own at a later stage.
54. The representative of Cuba said that she found the additional information included in the
Preamble useful.
55. The representative of the ITU Secretariat responded to some of the points raised by Members.
With reference to the size of the Preamble, he said that the ITU Council had insisted on the additional
language, which, however, was not new and had been  drawn from various legal instruments of the
two organizations.  On the imbalance between paragraphs 3 and 4, he explained that the ITU
Convention stated which organizations could be invited to the Plenipotentiary Conference and
Council meetings, and that the WTO was not included for the time being.  However, in the past the
WTO Secretariat had always been informally invited to such meetings, and the practice has always
been very flexible.  In addition, the draft co-operation agreement would be brought to the attention ofthe Plenipotentiary Conference in 2002, for the Conv ention to be amended to formally include the
WTO.  The ITU Secretary General could also confirm what he had just explained in an exchange of
letters.  As concerned the “may” in the commentary to paragraph 6, he confirmed that it was intended
as illustrative.  On paragraph 10, he noted that each party was to implement the agreement according
to its own procedures;  in the case of the ITU,  the Council adopted decisions and resolutions on the
internal steps to be taken to keep its Member States informed, but the WTO might have different
procedures.  With reference to paragraph 11, he explained that the drafting had been taken from other
ITU co-operation agreements and was standard ITU language.  With respect to the comment about
paragraph 12, he said that, if required, the ITU could draft additional language.  Finally, he explained
that the amendment in paragraph 13 was motivated by the complex ITU approval procedure, wherebyonly the Plenipotentiary Conference could grant final approval.
56. A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that, with respect to the circulation of
dispute settlement reports, the practice was that such reports were made public at the same time in
which they were circulated to WTO Members.  As concerned the alteration to paragraph 10, he
observed that the Secretariat had kept and would keep Members informed regardless of the
formulation in that paragraph.
57. The representative of the United States took note of the views of Members, but stressed the
importance of the co-operation agreement, which could help to ensure that the WTO and the ITU
benefitted from timely and appropriate mutual guidance and support.  The ITU was a multilateral
body uniquely suited to promoting regulatory reform in the telecommunication sector and to assisting
with WTO Members with the implementation of their basic telecommunication commitments.  He
expressed hope that an agreement would be arrived at soon.
58. Concluding the discussion on this item, the Ch airman said that the two Secretariats would
prepare an amended text to be discussed at the next Council meeting and called on Members to
endeavour to reach an agreement in time for the IT U Council meeting in July.  With respect to the
concerns expressed about imbalances, he felt that some formal understanding might be necessary.S/C/M/42
Page 9
E. NOTIFICATIONS MADE TO THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GATS
ARTICLES III:3, VII:4 AND XIVBIS
59. The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the notifications made pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Article III of the GATS by Canada (contained in  documents S/C/N/86, 87, 88, 89 and 90), Thailand
(S/C/N/91), the Czech Republic (S/C/N/92, 93 a nd 94), the European Communities (S/C/N/95),
Poland (S/C/N/96, 97, 98, 111, 112 and 113), Aust ralia (S/C/N/103), Spai n (S/C/N/106), Niger
(S/C/N/107 and 108), Guatemala (S/C/N/109), Madagascar (S/C /N/110), the Kyrgyz Republic
(S/C/N/114) and Egypt (S/C/N/116).
60. He then drew Members’ attention to the notifications made by Australia (contained in
documents S/C/N/100, 101, 102 and 104) and by Guatem ala (S/C/N/105), pursuant to paragraph 4 of
Article VII of the GATS.
61. Finally, he drew Members’ attention to the notification made by Nicaragua under
Article XIVbis of the GATS, contai ned in document S/C/N/115 and Corr.1.
62. The representative of Nicaragua noted that her authorities had followed WTO procedures and
notified the Services Council of measures taken under Article XIVbis of the GATS on 25 February
2000.
63. The representative of Colombia informed Members that his authorities had requested the
establishment of a dispute settlement panel with respect to the measures in Nicaragua’s notification.
64. As a more general comment, the representative of Canada said that notifications were made
for transparency purposes, but that they required a significant effort and wanted to thank all notifying
Members.
65. The Chairman suggested that the Council take note of the notifications and the statements
made.
F. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS – WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION,
ISLAMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK AND LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES
66. The Chairman recalled that on the agenda of the previous Council meeting on 25 February,
there were three requests for observer status, from the World Health Organization, the Islamic
Development Bank and the League of Arab States.  In addition, the question of the observer status for
the World Tourism Organization had also been raised.  It had been agreed that the WTO would attend
the meeting of 25 February, while the question of attending future meetings would be considered at
the present meeting.  Two of the four organizations were regional, while the other two were universal;
insofar as regional organizations were concerned, the Council had consistently postponed decisions on
observer status, awaiting guidance from the General Council.  He drew Members’ attention to the list,
prepared by the Secretariat, of all outstanding requests from regional organizations, contained indocument S/C/W/19/Rev.2, and proposed that Members add the names of the two regional
organizations to the list.  With respect to the tw o universal organization, he suggested that Members
follow the practice previously adopted in the case of the ITU and ICAO and grant them observer
status on an ad hoc basis, which implied inviting them to meetings of the Council when the agenda
contained an item of interest to them.
67. The representative of the Dominican Republic supported the Chairman’s suggestion and
appealed for Members’ flexibility with respect to granting ad hoc observer status to universal
organizations.S/C/M/42
Page 10
68. The Chairman concluded that the Council would adopt the approach he had outlined, and add
the names of the two regional organizations to the list in document S/C/W/19/Rev.2 and grant the two
universal organizations, the World Health Or ganization and the World Tourism Organization,
observer status on an ad hoc basis.
69. It was so agreed.
G. OTHER BUSINESS
70. The Chairman recalled that at its last meeting, the Council had agreed that it would revert to
the item relating to the review of the Understanding on Accounting Rates in Basic
Telecommunications on the basis of a progress report by the ITU on the work they are undertaking on
the accounting rates system.  However, he had been informed by the ITU that such a report would be
provided at the next Council meeting, hence the absence of the item on accounting rates from the
agenda of the present meeting.
71. The representative of Dominica asked that the Services Council consider reopening the
Fourth Protocol on Basic Telecommunications exceptionally to enable his authorities to accept it.
Dominica had missed earlier deadlines because it lacked the adequate technical capabilities to
undertake the necessary analysis of all related documentation and because its schedule was revised.
His authorities were now in a position to accept the Protocol and to give legal value to Dominica’s
commitments.  He hoped that the Council for Trade in Services would agree with his authorities’
request.
72. The representative of the United States welcomed the communication from Dominica and
supported their proposal.  He expressed continuing concern that other WTO Members had not taken a
similar step, and referred in particular to Brazil, the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, who
remained outstanding in their ratification of the Fourth Protocol.
73. The representatives of the Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago , Saint Lucia , Brazil  and
Mauritius expressed their full support to Dominica’s request that the Fourth Protocol be reopened,
which was testimony to Dominica’s commitment to the WTO.
74. The Chairman said that the Dominica’s request that the Fourth Protocol be reopened would be
placed on the agenda of the next Council meeting and that the Secretariat would prepare a draft
decision to that effect.
75. The representative of Guatemala took the oppo rtunity to inform delegations that GRULITA
had asked that the WTO Secretariat Trade in Services Division organize a seminar on services trade
and the GATS for Geneva-based delegations.  She reminded delegations that such a seminar had been
agreed and was scheduled for 10 and 11 May.
76. A representative of the WTO Secretariat explained that the request for such a seminar had
originated from GRULITA through the representative of Guatemala.  The final programme for the
two-day event would be circulated to delegation s soon.  The seminar had been enthusiastically
received, hence it was unlikely to be a small and intensive event as originally planned, but he hoped
that it would nonetheless prove to be very interactive.   In this regard, he stressed that the seminar was
intended as a basic introduction to the GATS.
__________