 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED  
 TN/RL/M/1  
8 April 2002  
 (02-1836)  
  Negotiating Group on Rules   
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING  
HELD ON 11 MARCH 2002  
 
Note by the Secretariat  
 
  
1. The Negotiating Group on Rules held its first formal meeting on 11 March 2002.  The 
purpose of the meeting, as indicated in document WT O/AIR/1732 convening the meeting, was to 
discuss the organization of the work of the Group.  
2. The Group confirmed the appointment of Mr. Tim Groser (New Zealand) as Chairman of the 
Group.  
3. The Chairman made an opening statement  concerning four key organizational issues:  the 
meeting schedule for 2002, the basis for the Group's work programme, the organization of the Group's 
work, and observers.   
4. With respect to the meeting schedule  for 200 2, the Chairman informed participants that 
meetings of the Group were scheduled for 6 -8 May, 8 -10 July, 16 -18 October and 25 -
27 November  2002; on 27 November, the Group would meet in the morning only.  This schedule took 
into account the strong preference expressed by many delegations that Group meetings be held back -
to-back with meetings of regular Rules -related bodies where possible.  
5. With respect to the basis for the Group's work , the Chairman assumed that the Group would 
proceed on the basis of written p roposals.  Proposals for consideration at the May meeting should be 
submitted, if at all possible, by 12 April 2002.  The secretariat would, of course, make every possible 
effort to ensure that proposals received after that date would be translated and dis tributed in time for 
the May meeting, but that could not be guaranteed.  The chairman asked for the understanding of the 
Group on this matter.  
6. With respect to the content of proposals , the Chairman observed that, although he was not 
proposing either ‘hard’  or ‘soft’ guidelines, he suggested that the Group’s work would be greatly 
assisted if all proposals contained, inter alia , certain key categories of information.  First, proposals 
should identify the proponents of the proposal, so participants know to who m to address requests for 
clarification or for bilateral consultations.  Second, proposals should indicate the type of change 
sought (e.g., clarification, interpretation, new provision).  Finally, proposals should contain a detailed 
rationale.  By providin g this information up front, the Group could avoid spending time on further 
requests for explanations and clarifications, which in any event would have to be provided in writing 
at some point.  Delegations should recall that now that we were in a formal ne gotiating mode, post -
Doha, an even wider range of capital -based officials and others would inevitably become involved in 
considering proposals.  The Chairman suggested that highly abbreviated language - known popularly 
as "Geneva -speak" - let alone relativ ely obscure cross -references to past proposals, papers and 
discussions, were unlikely to be comprehensible to this broader audience to which all were ultimately 
accountable.  Even at the risk of repetition, it was, he felt, important to get the key proposa ls onto the 
negotiating table in a readily comprehensible form.  TN/RL/M/1  
Page 2 
 
 
  
7. With respect to the organization of the Group's work , the Chairman noted that this was a 
practical issue relating to the organization of meetings.  Not all delegates would be interested in al l 
issues: for example, delegates involved in regional trade agreements should not have to sit through 
discussions of anti -dumping.  At the same time, some issues, such as anti -dumping and countervail 
investigation procedures, overlapped.  The goal would be  to group together for discussion proposals 
on related issues, in a purely pragmatic fashion.  For example, proposals on fisheries subsidies would 
be grouped together, but within the general framework of subsidies.  In short, the organization of the 
work w ould be driven by the proposals received.   
8. With respect to observers, the Chairman noted that based on his informal consultations with 
Participants, the time was not ripe for a decision.   
9. Concerning the content of proposals , a number of delegations indic ated that the Chairman's 
suggestions were very useful.  This said, several delegations noted that while the process would be 
driven by written contributions, these would not always be proposals per se , but might also include 
other kinds of submissions, suc h as discussion or background papers (this applied, for example, to 
RTA issues).   
10. A number of delegations noted that the outstanding implementation issues  in the rules area 
were an integral part of the negotiations to be undertaken by the Group.  On the b asis of comments 
made, the Chairman noted that there seemed to be a clear consensus on this point:  it followed from 
any clear reading of the Ministerial Declaration.  In this connection, one delegation noted that, while 
more information regarding implemen tation proposals would be useful, the submission of further 
information should not be a precondition to discuss these proposals.  Another delegation noted that for 
some implementation proposals, the rationale was already there.  One delegation stated that not all 
implementation proposals identified the provisions they sought to clarify and improve, while another 
indicated that it might be useful to re -introduce implementation proposals (as had been done regarding 
balance -of-payments proposals), so as to cap italize on the earlier discussions that had taken place on 
them elsewhere.  A number of delegations noted that it would be desirable that sponsors of 
implementation proposals flesh out their proposals and explain the rationale behind them, as this 
would al low for the most productive discussion of these issues.  This could provide a good basis for 
substantive discussion in the Group.   
11. Concerning organization of the Group's work , considerable support was expressed for the 
approach outlined by the Chairman, t hat is, to group discussion of related proposals together, under 
the broad headings of Anti -dumping, Subsidies/Countervailing Measures, and RTAs, with 
overlapping issues that fall under more than one heading (primarily certain anti -dumping and 
countervail issues) clustered together as well.  Several delegations indicated that implementation 
proposals should be given priority in the Group's work, were eligible for early harvest, and should 
thus be taken up first, with one suggesting that Participants should come prepared to discuss these 
proposals.  One delegation responded that all issues were eligible for early harvest under the 
Ministerial Declaration.  Some other delegations noted that discussing implementation issues in 
isolation from other proposals on the same or related provisions or issues could hamper their 
consideration.   
12. Concerning the Chairman's intention to group proposals on fisheries subsidies together, as a 
subtopic under Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, one view expressed was that fish eries 
subsidies should not be discussed outside the framework of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, just because there were separate submissions on it.  Other delegations 
expressed disappointment over the Chairman’s intention to group this topic under the subsidies 
heading, and stated that such treatment would be exclusively for practical purposes.  Such delegations  TN/RL/M/1  
 Page 3 
 
 
 emphasised that such an approach could not alter the independent status of fisheries subsidies 
negotiations in the Ministe rial Declaration, and would not prejudge the independent nature, modalities 
or time assigned to the issue.  
13. In summing up , the Chairman noted the discussion that had been held concerning the nature 
and content of proposals , stated that it was clear that the  Group would like to see some 
proposals/submissions on the table for its next meeting, and recalled the 12 April indicative 
submission date to ensure time for translation.  Concerning the implementation issues , he further said 
that every delegation that sp oke on the matter supported the view that the Group take up the 
implementation issues.  Now it was for proponents to decide how to best convince their negotiating 
partners.  While in some cases, the rationale for implementation proposals might already have  been 
explained, in other cases the best chance for convincing colleagues might be to provide a more 
detailed explanation of, or further background on, the rationale of the proposals, a point that had been 
made by a number of delegations, including certain  proponents of implementation issues.  
14. Concerning the organization of discussions , the Chairman reiterated his intention to group 
proposals and submissions on the basis of topics, under the broad headings of Anti -Dumping, 
Subsidies/Countervailing Measures and Regional Trade Agreements, taking into account overlapping 
issues under more than one of these headings.  Proposals relating to fisheries subsidies would be 
grouped together under the Subsidies/Countervailing Measures heading.  This approach was purely  
practical, was without prejudice to the priority of any issue, and was strictly neutral with respect to 
policy outcomes or the future organization of the Group's work.  
15. Regarding the issue of observers , the Chairman indicated that he would convey to colle agues 
the view expressed by some participants in informal discussions that this subject raised concerns that 
were broader than those of the Group.  
__________  
 
 