RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS/CSC/M/14
18 May 2000
(00-2031)
Committee on Specific Commitments
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 AND 12 APRIL 2000
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Specific Committee held a meeting on 11 and 12 April 2000.  The agenda
for the meeting was contained in document WTO/AIR/1278.  The Chairman also introduced an
annotated agenda for this meeting, which was contained in document Job No. 2143.  The Chairman
raised an item under other business concerning a statement he intended to make on the status of the
verification of electronic schedules process.
2. It was so agreed.
A. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON
3. The Chairman recalled that the former Chairman of the Services Council, Mr Stuart
Harbinson, had circulated a slate of names for the chairs of the services subsidiary bodies, including
the Committee on Specific Commitments.  The Chairman of the Council had said that in the absence
of any objections by delegations, it should be assumed that a consensus existed on these names and
that the subsidiary bodies should proceed with the election of their new chairpersons as from theirnext meetings.  He noted that no such objections had been raised.  On this basis he proposed that the
Committee elect Mr. Tomochika Uyama of Japan as its next Chairman by acclamation.
4. It was so agreed.
B. DRAFT DECISION BY THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN SERVICES ON THE
CERTIFICATION OF RECTIFICATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO SCHEDULES OF
SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS
5. The Chairman introduced this item by noting th at after several informal consultations, the
Committee might be in a position to take a decision on these procedures.  He informed delegations
that, as agreed at the previous informal meeting of the Committee on certification, which was held on
29 March 2000, the text of the procedures had been circulated as document S/CSC/W/26, together
with a draft decision by the Council for Trade in Services (Job No. 2020) and with a documenthighlighting the changes introduced to the previous draft as a result of the meeting of 29 March (Job
No. 5203/Rev.4).  He added that the Council draft decision was being circulated to the Committee for
its knowledge and that it would be forwarded to  the Services Council for adoption as document
S/C/W/133, once the Committee had taken a decision on the text.  He then briefly switched to
informal mode to introduce a small linguistic change to the text.
6. Once the Committee had reverted to formal mode the Chairman offered the floor to
delegations who wanted to make statements before the adoption of the text of the procedures.  The
representative of Brazil stated for the record that it was the understanding of his delegation that the
procedures would only apply to commitments which were in force for the modifying Member and thatthe wording “specified or to be specified” in para graph 1 was meant to allow entry into force of the
new schedule at a future date indicated by the modifying Member or to allow the modifying Member
to indicate a date after ratification.  The representative of Guatemala said that her delegation could
join the consensus on the procedures, but stressed  that such procedures applied to technicalS/CSC/M/14
Page 2
modifications as well as to improvements in the commitments and that the latter should be facilitated
and not made more difficult than necessary.  For this reason her delegation had supported the adoption
of a fixed timeframe so as to avoid the risk that the entry into force of genuine improvements to the
commitments be delayed indefinitely.
7. The Chairman then proposed that the Committee ad opt the text of the procedures as contained
in document S/C/W/26 with the modifications to paragraph 2 he had suggested in the informal
discussions and agree to send the text to the Council for Trade in Services for the adoption of a formal
decision at its next meeting.  The text to be forwarded to the Council was contained in document
S/C/W/26/Rev.1
8. It was so agreed.
C. CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
9. The Chairman proposed that the discussions on the classification of the individual sectors be
held in informal mode and that the Committee revert to formal mode for the discussion of the general
questions concerning classification. A summary of the discussion is contained in document Job
No. 205/Rev.7.  The Chairman indicated that in his view there were two orders of general questions
on classification the Committee should address.  The first concerned the substance of the work onclassification and in particular the overall aim of the work of the Committee in this area.  The second
concerned the way the Committee intended to organize and bring forward this work.
10. Regarding the substance  of the work on classification the Chairman raised the issue of the
overall aim of the exercise.  He recalled that in the past meetings discussions had touched upon
various possible outcomes for the work on classification including possible amendments to theexisting sectoral classification (document MTN.GNS/W/120) and the development of “clusters” of
sectors.  He suggested that Members should begin asking themselves what they wanted to do with the
existing sectoral classification and namely the “W/120”.  He pointed out that while it was the general
view that this process should not result in an overhaul of the existing classification and that the
structure of the “W/120” should be preserved, it was also evident, however, that adding new sectors orimproving some existing sectoral entries would require an amendment of the existing classification
list.  He also noted that it was the general view that the development of “clusters” of sectors did not
require a change to the existing classification and therefore would not require an amendment of the
“W/120”.  He added, however, that “clusters” would constitute a useful tool for negotiations, which
the Committee should develop.
11. The representative of Argentina said that the main scope of the Committee’s work on
classification was to amend the “W/120” where it was necessary, as an effective and objective
classification was important for the scheduling of comparable commitments.  He argued that the
issues of whether to agree on a mandatory classification or not was relevant to the debate, but that it
should be discussed at a later stage.  In the view of his delegation the classification of “core services”
should be the main focus of the current work, while they had not yet a final position on the issue of
“clusters”, which should be discussed later.
12. The representative of Mexico said that the work on classification was a technical exercise
aimed at discovering if amendments to the existing classification were necessary and justified.  He
stressed that his delegation wanted to preserve the existing classification structure and that any
possible changes had to be necessary and fully justified from a technical point of view.  On the issue
of "clusters", he expressed serious doubts as to whether such approach could give any benefits toMembers and questioned that there was any emerging consensus on this issue.  He argued that any
classification should be sufficiently general and neutral in order to favour the exchange of
commitments among Members, while serious questions existed on an approach to classification based
on end-uses.  He added that in his view “clusters” were negotiating instruments rather thanS/CSC/M/14
Page 3
classification and that in principle such work was not within the mandate of the Committee, but within
that of the Special Session of the Services Council on the Article XIX negotiations.  Although
“clusters” were concerned with the development of negotiating tools, rather than with technical
classification work, he said that his delegation was not closing the door completely to any work on
this issue in the Committee.
13. The representative of Chile argued that the “clusters” approach could be seen from various
angles and that from one point of view it could be relevant to classification work.  He suggested that
Members continue to discuss in the Committee "clusters" as instruments for classification rather than
instruments for negotiations.  The representative of the Dominican Republic agreed with Argentina
that the services classification could be updated where it was necessary and said that his delegationwas open to technical changes which would favour the exchange of commitments among Members.
He argued that the Committee should focus first on the classification of “core services”, while thedevelopment of “clusters” was more a negotiating issue.  He added that, although the one on
classification was a technical negotiation, a difficulty was caused by the fact that “negotiating
guidelines and procedures” for the services negotiations had not yet been agreed.
14. India argued that at that point in time the Committee should not prejudge the outcome of the
work on classification, which might or might not result in an amendment of the “W/120” and that the
current focus on a number of sectors should not prevent the inclusion of other sectors at any point in
time.  Its representative stressed that the work on classification should not undermine the architecture
of the GATS and should not give negotiating advantages to any Member.  Like other delegations he
expressed strong reservations on the “clusters” approach.  The Chairman confirmed that the current
sectoral focus of the classification work did not ex clude the inclusion of other sectors at any point in
time.
15. The representative of Hong Kong, China agreed with Argentina that while no major overhaul
of the existing classification structure was needed, it would be desirable to amend and improve the
current classification, where necessary, as there were some sectors whose classification was clearly
inadequate and others which had to be added to it.  He said that some work might also be needed onthe correspondences between the services sectoral classification and the CPC codes.  On the issue of
“clusters” he added that his delegation regarded “clusters” as negotiating tools, which could be
discussed in the Committee, although in his view th e outcome of such discussion was far from being
clear.  Canada stated that in their view the purpose of the classification work in the Committee was to
revise the “W/120” and that such revision shou ld be based on the UN CPC/Rev.1, which included all
services with no exclusions.  Its representative argued that the “clusters” approach was an interesting
negotiating tool and that it would be useful to  hear more views form Members on this issue.
Switzerland noted that a revision of the current classification was needed to reflect changes intervened
in the various sectors and that amendments should be made where necessary.  On "clusters" itsrepresentative said that it was important to continue discussions on this negotiating tool and that any
Member could make proposals on "clusters".
16. Egypt agreed with other delegations that although the final objective of he work on
classification might be improvements and amendments of the “W/120”, this should be done only on
the basis of necessity and technical justification.  According to this delegation the Committee should
now focus on the classification of “core services”, l eaving the issue of "clusters" for later.  Norway
argued that probably a more thorough revision of “W/120” was needed than many delegations were
ready to accept.  On "clusters" this delegation expressed reservations concerning the mandate of theCommittee to deal with this issue.
17. The representative of the United States stated that the objective of the Committee was to
develop a common agreed classification.  He recalled that, as the Committee had encountered
difficulties in working on a general revision “W/120”, based on the new version of the CPC, Members
had agreed to focus on classification problems in specific sectors.  He argued therefore that theS/CSC/M/14
Page 4
general question of whether there should be major or minor changes to the “W/120” was not relevant,
as the only general objective was the development of a common agreed classification system.  He
added that at that point in time Members should not lose the sectoral focus and be cautious about
developing general approaches.  On “clusters”, he said that also this issue should not be dealt with
generally, but on a sector by sector basis.  He noted that for the time being it had been raised only inthe environmental services sector and that Members would consider whether it was useful also in
other sectors.  He added that in his point of view a sharp distinction between “clusters” work and
classification work was not appropriate, as in some cases “clusters” were a means to improve and
integrate classification.  In this respect he noted that it had been useful to divide the debate on the
classification of environmental services between “core services” and “clusters”.
18. Japan argued that the “W/120” should be amended, where necessary and justified, and that
there were several areas which needed improvements in the current classification.  On “clusters” this
delegation said that the advantages and the disadvantages of this approach should be discussed
further.  Brazil, like Mexico and Argentina, said that the main focus of the Committee should be
possible amendment and improvements to the “W/120”.  In the view of this delegation, the issue of“clusters” was strictly related to the negotiations, so that the right place to address such issue might be
the “negotiating guidelines and procedures” rather than the work on classification of the Committee.The representative of Australia expressed strong support for the “core services”/”clusters” approach to
the work on classification.  She said that her delegation was not seeking a major overhaul of the“W/120” and that in her view the entries for the “core services” in the “W/120” should remain
mutually exclusive; “clusters” on the other hand woul d be helpful in dealing with gaps in the current
classification with respect to commercially related sectors in areas such as environment and energy.Like Canada, she said that her delegation was open to look at the CPC/Rev.1 for the classification of
individual sectors.  She added that both “clusters” and “model schedules” were useful negotiating
tools, which the Committee could develop.
19. The representative of the European Communities supported amending and improving the
current classification, where necessary.  On the “clusters” approach she said that her delegation was
reflecting on it and that in their view it was better to deal with this issue on a sector by sector basis.
She argued that both “clusters” and “model schedule” were approaches, which Members should
discuss either in the Committee on Specific Commitments or in the Services Council.  New Zealand
supported expanding and enhancing the scope of the current classification within the frameworks ofthe “W/120” and the CPC, where this was useful and necessary to address the post Uruguay Round
developments in the sectors.  He said that any work on “clusters” should not lead to the fragmentation
of core infrastructural services.  Venezuela supported work on the development of “W/120”, but
expressed reservation on dealing with “clusters” in the CSC, as these were negotiating tools for each
delegation and not technical work on classification.  The representative of Korea expressed the views
that any changes or amendments to the “W/120” should be minimal and that the “clusters” werenegotiating tools helpful in dealing with the concept of directly related services.  On “clusters” he
supported a short list of directly related services and suggested that Members also give considerationto the issue of how to reflect “clusters” in the schedules.
20. The Chairman summing up the discussion said that according to most Members the work of
the Committee should focus first on “core services” ra ther than on "clusters" and that the basis of this
work should be the revision of the “W/120”.  He  noted that many Members had stressed that any
amendments to the “W/120” should only intervene where it was necessary and justified to ensurelegal certainty and that some Members has raised the question of the role to assign to the CPC/Rev.1
in this process of revision.  He said that while there was agreement on the mutually exclusive nature
of the “W/120”, the question of the mandatory or voluntary nature of the new classification was to be
addressed at a later stage.  On “clusters” he pointed out that there were different views among
delegations.  Some delegations expressed strong interest in this concept, while others expressedreservations and concerns especially in relation to the negotiations.  He suggested that the CommitteeS/CSC/M/14
Page 5
might continue to discuss this issue from a technical point of view, as the development of “clusters”
could be a means of avoiding duplication of classification.
21. Regarding the organization  of work on classification, the Chairman asked delegation to focus
their attention on the proposal put forward by his predecessor that Members consider introducing
some changes in their method of work in order to advance work in this area.  The proposal envisaged
the possibility of holding informal meetings for interested delegations on the classification of the
various sectors, which would be open to all Members and would be held back to back with the formal
meetings of the Committee, according to a calendar known in advance.  The meetings would be
chaired in principle by the Chairman of the Committee, who would report back to the Committee on
the activities performed and the progress made in those meetings.  All working documents would be
circulated to the Members of the Committee.  He emphasized that the aim of the proposed method of
work was to bring together delegations interested in the classification of the various sectors and toadvance work in this area, including the preparation of drafts for discussions in the full Committee.  It
was not in any way meant to prejudice the principle of transparency, as the informal meetings on the
sectors would be open to all interested delegations and would report regularly to the full Committee
on their activities.  He recalled that that at the last meeting this proposal was well received by a
significant number of delegations, who encouraged the Chairman to conduct consultations with aview to taking a decision at this meeting.
22. The representative of the European Communities said that the time was ripe for bringing the
work on classification into a higher level of detail s and that this could be done by working informally
in small groups which would report back to the full Committee.  India  said that there were already
many services meetings and that to form sub-groups within the Committee on Specific Commitments
might lead to a further increase in the workload of delegations.  He expressed a preference for
informal discussions on the classification of services sectors to be held within the formal meeting of
the Committee on Specific Commitments.  Mexico expressed the same reservations as India and
proposed to hold the informal discussions on the classification of the sectors within the Committee.In his view this could be done by suspending the formal Committee for half a day or for one day toallow for the informal discussions on classifications to take place; the formal Committee would
resume at the end of the informal discussions in order to take stock of the progress made in the
informal session.  The informal discussions would be chaired by the Chairman of the Committee.
Venezuela agreed with Mexico and suggested th at the Chairman may present a summary of the
informal discussions to at the end of the formal Committee.
23. Switzerland noted that classification was a very technical issue and that it was desirable to
have informal meetings in smaller rooms to favour exchanges among delegations and the drafting of
proposals.  Its representative stressed that this would remain a transparent exercise with full reporting
to the Committee and that it would not lead to the creation of any sub-groups.  The United States also
supported the proposal by the Chairman which aimed at finding a solution to the question of how totackle such a technical issue.  He also expressed appreciation for the flexibility signalled by Mexico in
holding informal discussions within the Committee.  The delegation of Mauritius expressed serious
concerns for the multiplication of meetings, especially  in the light of the fact that small delegations
did not have the resources to attend al of them.  He echoed the positions expressed by India Mexico
and Venezuela.  Also the delegations of Cuba, Egypt , Hong Kong, China  and Uruguay  supported the
proposal made by Mexico of holding the informal discussions within the formal meetings of theCommittee on Specific Commitments.
24. The representative of Guatemala said she unde rstood the reasons of those delegations who
wanted to advance work on classifications by holding small informal meetings, but pointed out that
the Committee on Specific Commitments was already a technical body and that as such it should be
able to advance discussions on this matter.  She also supported the proposal by Mexico to hold the
informal discussions on classification within the Committee and to establish in advance a calendar forthe sectoral discussions.  Argentina said that their position on this matter was flexible and clarifiedS/CSC/M/14
Page 6
that the idea of having small informal meetings on the sectors was meant to bring the technical work
on classification beyond the stage of questions and answers among delegations, including more
focused discussions and the drafting of proposals.  Its representative argued that it was the dynamic of
the technical work on classification which mattered and that a new dynamic could be achieved within
the ordinary meeting of Committee.  Chile supported the intervention of Argentina and pointed out
that the proposals by Mexico followed a format of meetings that already existed in the house.
25. The Chairman noted that there was general support for the proposal made by Mexico of
holding the informal sessions on the classification of the sectors within the meetings of Committee on
Specific Commitments.  He said that an explanation of the structure of the discussions would be
included in the airgram of the meeting of the Committee.
D. SCHEDULING GUIDELINES
26. The Chairman recalled that at the previous meeting the Committee structured its discussions
of the revision of the scheduling guidelines along a Note by the Chairman containing comments and
drafting suggestions on the outstanding issues (document Job No. 772).  On the basis of that
discussion Members agreed to focus their future discussions on a number of priority outstanding
issues that could reasonably be solved, while putting aside for the time being other outstanding issueswhich were either too difficult or too marginal to be addressed usefully.  At this meeting the
Chairman proposed that the Committee structure its discussions by focusing on the priority issues
identified at the previous meeting and listed in paragraph 27 of the report of that meeting (S/C/M/13)
as well as in paragraph 14 of the annotated agenda for this meeting (document Job No. 2143).
(The headings of the items discussed at this meeting, and reported below, follow the original
numbering in the Note by the Chairman (documen t Job No. 772) and so do the references made by
delegations to paragraphs containing proposals by the Chairman.)
II. F
OOTNOTES , HEADNOTES AND ATTACHMENTS
27. The United States said that it was their understanding that the new guidelines would be
perspective in nature and therefore would not apply retroactively to the existing commitments in the
schedules.  It agreed with paragraph 6 of the Chairman’s Note, which affirmed the legally binding
nature of all entries in the schedules.  With respect to paragraph 7, it noted that footnotes were useful,
but when they were inserted in a schedule they should clearly state whether they were legally binding
or whether they were for the purpose of transparency.  With respect to paragraph 8 it stated that
headnotes could be useful tools and agreed on the formulation of paragraph 9.
28. Argentina find the proposals in the Chairman’s Note to be useful.  On paragraph 7 it also
agreed with the proposal by the Chair, but said they were ready to explore the suggestion made by the
United States regarding the specification of whether footnotes were legally binding or for
transparency.  Hong Kong, China  said that in principle everything in the schedules should be legally
binding, but like Argentina gave its availability to explore the proposal by the United States onfootnotes.  Like the United States expressed doubts on the Chair’s proposal on paragraph 8.  Egypt
could accept paragraphs 6 and 9 and said they would give consideration to the US proposal on
paragraph 7.  Mexico stated that in their view it was clear that everything which was in the schedules
was to be considered as legally binding, so that there was no need for paragraph 6 and that theysupported the Chair’s proposal on paragraph 7 as the use of footnotes should be limited as much as
possible.  It supported paragraph 9 and argued that paragraph 10 could be useful for the nextnegotiations.  Korea and Japan
 agreed with paragraphs 6 to 9, but pointed out that headnotes were
useful in order to avoid repetitions.  The European Communities supported the Chair’s proposals on
paragraphs 6 to 9.  India and Mauritius  also supported paragraphs 6 to 9, but said that paragraph 6
should be stronger and make clear that everything which was in the schedules was legally binding.Uruguay supported the text in paragraph 6, but agreed with Mexico that probably it was notS/CSC/M/14
Page 7
necessary.  Its representative noted, however, that paragraph 6 had to be related more closely with
paragraphs 7, 8 and 9.  Regarding the US proposal on paragraph 7 he said that they needed to analyze
it more closely.  Norway agreed with the Chair’s proposals on paragraphs 6, 7 and 9, and said that the
wording in paragraph 8 should be improved and clarified.  New Zealand supported paragraph 6, but
was hesitant on paragraphs 7 to 9, as in their current formulation they might undermine the statementin paragraph 6.
29. The Chairman summing up noted that delegations agreed on the content of paragraph  6 of the
Chairman’s Note, but some found it necessary while some others did not.  Delegations supported the
Chairman’s drafting of paragraph 7, but requested some time to reflect on the a proposals by the
United States on footnotes.  As it appeared that paragraph 8 was not acceptable to many Members in
its current formulation, the Chairman undertook to consult with the Secretariat on some alternative
drafting.  He noted that paragraph 9 appeared to be acceptable to delegations, while some morediscussions were needed on the issue of the date of  entry into force.  He suggested that Members
revert to this item at the next meeting.
III. M
EANING OF MARKET ACCESS RESTRICTIONS
30. The Chairman recalled that under this item at the previous meeting the delegation of the
United States had proposed some changes to the text proposed by the Chairman in his Note.  The
delegations of Japan supported the changes proposed by the United States to the Chairman’s text and
withdrew some additional suggestions it had made at  the previous meeting. The Chairman noted that
there seemed to be an emerging consensus on the formulation of this paragraph, but the delegation of
Canada objected that at this stage they could not agree on a revision of the guidelines on this point, as
it did not appear to be necessary in the absence of any impact on existing commitments. The
Chairman suggested that Members revert to this item at the next meeting.
V. R ELEVANT COLUMNS AND MODE FOR THE SCHEDULING OF NATIONALITY EQUIREMENTS
31. No comments were made under this point.  The Chairman suggested that Members revert to
this item at the next meeting.
VII. I LLUSTRATIVE LIST OF NATIONAL TREATMENT LIMITATIONS
32. Canada said that the list was useful, but that it should be more generic in nature than the
current one.  The United States noted that there was a lack of clarity in the items included in the list.
Argentina and Uruguay  found the list useful and said that Members should take more time to look at it
in detail.  The Chairman said that some more re flection on the list was desirable and suggested that
Members revert to this item at the next meeting.
IX. M EASURES INCONSISTENT WITH BOTH ARTICLES XVI AND XVII (ARTICLE XX :2)
33. The Chairman recalled that the discussion under this item at the last meeting had covered also
issues relating to point XIV of the Chairman’s Note, “meaning of no limitations” and that Switzerlandpresented some alternative language relating to these two items.  Canada stated that they had some
serious difficulties with the proposals made under this point, as in their view this was a negotiatingissue and not a technical one, and invited delegations to reflect on what could be the impact of such a
revision on the existing commitments.  Japan expressed concerns that such a revision might cause
more confusion in the future.  Mexico found the proposal by the Chairman on this issue to be
acceptable.  Uruguay said that in their view Article XX:2 of the GATS was sufficiently clear on this
point and that the guidelines could be not be used to modify a GATS article.  Therefore they could
accept the proposal by the Chairman on this point only if it was clear that Article XX:2 would always
prevail over the guidelines.  The representative of the United States said that his delegation did not
believe that an amendment to the GATS was necessary to deal with this issue and that they found theS/CSC/M/14
Page 8
proposal by the Chairman on this point to be very useful, although they needed some more time to
reflect on point XIV of the Chairman’s Note.  he also encouraged Canada to provide further
explanations on its difficulty on this point.  Argentina and Korea  fond that both the Chairman’s and
the Swiss proposals represented good solutions to the problem related to the ambiguity among somemarket access and national treatment entries in the schedules.  The Chairman noted that many
Members had said that they wanted to solve this problem without amending the GATS and that a
good degree of support existed for the proposal made by the Chairman on this point.  He suggested
that Members revert to this item at the next meeting.
XV. M ODE 4 COMMITMENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIED DURATION
34. The Chairman recalled that under this item at the last meeting the delegation of Hong Kong,
China had proposed some alternative language to the text proposed by the Chairman.  Korea
supported the proposal by Hong Kong, China.  India expressed strong support for the proposal by the
Chairman which required indicating the duration of temporary stay in the schedule. The United States
also supported the proposals by the Chairman, provided that “shall” be changed to “should”. The
Chairman suggested that Members revert to this item at the next meeting.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
Verification of electronic schedules
35. The Chairman informed delegations on the process of verification of the electronic version of
the schedules.  He recalled that at its meeting held on 22 September 1999, the Committee had agreedon the format and on the procedure for the verification of the electronic schedules.  The Committee
had also approved an extension of the deadline from 60 to 75 days as of reception of the schedules.
As a consequence of these decisions, on 20 December 1999, the Secretariat sent to delegations the
electronic version of the schedules to be verified with the original schedule.  He pointed to the
attention of delegations that the effective date of expiry of the 75-day period was 4 March 2000 andthat the procedure chosen by the Committee was that of implicit approbation.  This meant that without
comments by a delegation before the expiry date, the electronic version had been considered accurate
and therefore was ready for inclusion in the cd-rom.
36. He informed delegations that by the deadline of 4 March 2000 a total of 41 Members had
contacted the Secretariat.  24 Members communicated that they had no comments and required no
changes to the electronic version, 14 Members required some technical changes to the electronic
versions and 3 Members asked for an extension in time to provide their comments.  The Secretariatwas introducing the changes requested and hoped to have the cd-rom ready before the summer break.
Work was also under way on the preparation of the Internet version of the electronic schedules.
Date of the next meeting
37. Regarding the date of the next meeting, the Chai rman said that while he was going to consult
with delegations on possible informal meetings, the next formal meeting would take place during the
next “Services Week”, preceding the meeting of the Council Special Session on the negotiations.  The
timing of the next “Services Week” was to be decided by the Council Special Session on the
negotiations, which was going to meet on Friday, 14 April 2000.
__________