As with any major undertaking, there are hundreds - perhaps thousands - of people involved in the effort to expand and update the 1996 Information Technology Agreement.  For us, one of the most authoritative and most insightful of those is John Neuffer, Senior Vice President for Global Policy at the Information Technology Industry Council, ITI.  Today's quote is from his blog post of October 8.  Here is the full first paragraph:

Many had hoped for a successful conclusion to those negotiations this past summer, but then, in July, China confronted her negotiating partners with a very long list of products she wanted exempted from the negotiations - some 106 out of 260 items under discussion.  The other ITA countries balked, and the talks were suspended. 

Now the talks are back on track, due to resume in Geneva during the week of October 21.  If China is blamed for this summer's suspension, she also gets credit for the fresh breeze in the sails of the ITA expansion.  That's because, in Bali, she offered assurances to the U.S. and others to the effect that, in the end, China's demand for exceptions - "sensitivities" is the term of art - will be much more manageable.

The summer of 2013 is history now.  The new target for concluding the ITA talks is the WTO's ministerial meeting in Bali this December (the 3rd through the 6th).  That new target was underscored by the Director-General of the WTO, Roberto Azevêdo, in his remarks to APEC Ministers on October 4.  "I would urge those of you involved," he said, "to press on [with the ITA negotiations] with a view, hopefully, to the harvesting of a product expansion package in December."

Will such a package be negotiated?  Count us as qualified optimists - the qualification being that we recognize how foolhardy it is to predict the outcome of any negotiation.

Looking back, those who want to see the ITA product coverage list updated and expanded wanted the deal done this summer for two reasons.  There was the obvious one that the sooner the deal was done, the sooner its benefits would kick in.  But there was another reason as well.  Having the ITA package seen as a Bali deliverable might entangle it in the broader politics surrounding the WTO ministerial.  Understandably, that's something the ITA proponents wanted to avoid.

That could still happen, but it shouldn't.   ITA is a plurilateral agreement.  When Russia joined the ITA this past summer, it brought the number of participants up to 78.  That's a lot, and those countries account for some 97 percent of world trade in information technology products, but it is less than half of the WTO's total membership of 159.

An ITA agreement would be a boon for the world and a plus for the reputation of the WTO.  But for the organization writ large, the ITA is not the test that matters.  The test that matters is the multilateral deal  being worked on for Bali, one to be agreed to by each and every member and that includes language on Trade Facilitation, on Agriculture (in some fashion, possibly a peace clause), and on Development.

In his remarks yesterday - pep talk really -- to the WTO's General Council, Director-General Azevêdo said, "the reality is that the pace of substantive advancement is still far too slow for our Bali targets."  In closing, he advised the members - the Geneva ambassadors and their staffs - to clear their calendars for the weeks ahead.  "Starting Monday," he said, "every hour is a working hour and every day is a working day."

We admire his spirit and do not doubt that great efforts are being made to make the Bali Ministerial a success - with ITA as an ornament, not the tree.

And we are mindful too of something in today's Washington Trade Daily.  In an article on the broader Geneva negotiations, that publication declared:

Perhaps.  Our own suspicion is that the keys to success (or failure) for the WTO in December are locked away in the minds of two or three political leaders of two or three countries, and we are not likely to see them or know their meaning much before that fateful first Friday in December.