COORDINATING COMMITTEE RECORD OF DISCUSSION ON THE REPORT OF THE DRAFTING GROUP ON THE INTERNATIONAL LISTS 11TH FEBRUARY 1960

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP62-00647A000200030021-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 11, 1998
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: February 16, 1960
• Content Type: MIN

-Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200030021-5
Q R1' I D E N T I
53
16 th February. 1960. COCOA Document No. 33_Q
COORDIN.TING COALi.1AITTEE
RECORD OF DISCUSSION
ON
THE REPOhT OF THE DR RTING GROUP ON TIE INTER1LTIONi L LISTS
11th February 1960
Present; Belgium (LuxeL.bourg), Derluark, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, Turkey, Unite4 Kin doo., United States.
References: COCOA. 1766, j700.10, 3851, 3854, 3864-
1. The CH%Ihwi,N referred to the two reports (1959 List Review/W.P. 11
and 12) of the Drafting Group which had been set up to examine the need for
clarification and st.zidardization of the definitions in the International Lists.
He recalled that the first report, c3ealinL, with the standardization of reporting
procedures for ad:ainistrative excetions, had already been ,iscussed in the
Committee (COCO.- 3851, 3854, 3864)? He enquired whether Delegates had any
further state.:Lents to wake concerning the two as:ects of this question: the
notification of adi::inistrative exceptions on a licensin6 or shipments basis and
the ,ro,.osal to standardize the time limit for reporting; such exceptionsra115
days. The. second report drew the Committee's attention to the follcwin~, edito-
rial improvements which might be made to avoid misunderstanding in the interpre
re.
tation of the lists: Cq;N v '`,)1$'Epr+4T ,' '1kC4 PT ' I7
REb~i~R~aJ
(a) variety of wordin,,s was used for the sub-items referrinL; to
parts, components, accessories, etc. It might be advisable to
re-exaL.ine these sub-items with a view to standardizing the
wording.
(b) Sub-items were sometimes linked by the word "or". It might be
advisable to adopt a uniform procedure.
(c) The Drafting Group were of opinion that consideration might be
given by the Committee, in all cases where percentages were
given, to specifying the denomination (weight, volume4 etc.)
intended.
(d) It might be advisable to review the use of expressions indica-
ting "specially designed", "capable of", etc. with a view to
clarifying their meaning and standardizing their use.
(e) Another matter to which thought might be given by the Committee
was the use of the expression "n.e.s.", with a view to standar-
dizing this usage.
(f) If this work were undertaken, it might be useful at the same
time to standardize expressions such as "more than", "or more",
"less than" and "or less".
Tne above remarks applied especially to the English version of the
Lists and only in part to the French version.
The Chairman asked Delegates for their views as to how the Committee should deal
with these points. He suggested that the Drafting Group might be asked to give
exact indications of where the discrepancies occurred and to make concrete pro-
posals for handling them. It would be useful if this work could be completed
by the time of the 1960 List review so that the amendments could be incorporated
in the new lists issued after that review.
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200030021-5
 .Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200030021-5
CONFIDENTIAL - 2
COCOM Document No. 3871
2. The ITALIAN Delegate said tat he had already adopted a clear posi-
tion with regard to the reporting of administrative exceptions (COCOM 3864,
paragraph 6). As far as the second report was concerned, he felt that the best
solution was for the Drafting Group to continue with their work, identify the
items in question and make suggestions for dealing with them.
3. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate, referring to the time limit for retor-
ting administrative exceptions, said that his authorities felt that it would be
useful if the Committee could agree to standardize on 15 days. They would
themselves have preferred a slightly longer period but they were willing to
accept 15 days.
4. The GERMAN Delegate stated that his authorities could accept a
standard time limit of 15 days.
5. The FRENCH Delegate said that his authorities had given careful
study to the standardization of the reporting procedures for administrative
exceptions. They had given him no fresh instructions. In reply to a question
put by the Italian Delegate as to whether his authorities had alternative
proposals to submit to the Committee, he said that the present system had given
satisfactory results and his authorities saw no need to make any changes.
6. The GERMAN Delegate stated that his authorities would continue to
report on a licensing basis despite the fact that there was no unanimity for
this system. They hoped that other Member Countries would do the same.
7. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate informed the Committee that his
authorities would continue to report on a licensing basis.
8. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that there was no need to restate
the views which were recorded in paragraphs 2 and 8 of COCOM 3864. He expressed
his disappointment that the French Delegation had been unable to permit the
Committee to reach a6reement. His authorities hoped that the lack of unanimity
would not continue for long.
9. The CHAIRAN stated that there was no point in continuing the dis-
cussion on the standardization of the reporting procedures for administrative
exceptions if no new elements were introduced. The large majority of the
Committee would continue to report on a licensing basis. If the other Member
Country concerned decided eventually to follow suit, it would notify the Commit-
tee of its intention. The same remarks applied to the 15 day time limit. He
invited Delegates to give their views on the second report of the Drafting
Group.
10. The UNITED KINGDOM Delegate suggested that the bulk of the work
might more conveniently be done in capitals, then Delegations could raise points
individually before the 1960 List Review. He thought that agreement on percen-
tages (paragraph 1(c) above) might be reached imcuediately.
il. The GERMAN Delegate agreed that the actual work of standardization
should be completed by the next List Review. He suggested that decisions of
principle might be made at the present stage as far as one or two points were
concerned. The question of percentages mentioned by the United Kingdom Delegate
was one example: it could be agreed that percentages always referred to weight
unless specifically stated otherwise. An administrative principle could be
worked out to cover the variety of terms mentioned in paragraph 1(a), saying,
for example, that "parts" meant "components", "accessories" and the other words
used. The terms mentioned in paragraph 1(d) above should be limited to three
standard terms: "specially designed", "capable of" and "rated for" and a clear
definition should be agreed for each of these.
12. The UNITED STATES Delegate said that his authorities had carefully
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Approved For Release - - A000200030021-5
 .Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200030021-5
CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - COCOM Document No. 3879
studied the second report of the Drafting Group and had come to the conclusion
that the total pro6ramme might not justify the volume of work involved. lie
agreed with the United Kingdom suggestion that individual practical problems
might be submitted to the Committee as the need was seem by any Member Country.
Concerning the specific problem of percentages, he agreed that weight was
what was intended, except in Items 1770 where the percentage should be in
volume terms and 1781, where the present wording was adequate.
13. The CHAIRMAN of the Drafting Group, in reply to a question by the
United Kingdom Delegate, stated that the percentage given in Item 1631(c)
referred neither to weight nor to volume but to remanence.
L4. lifter further discussion, the COiITTEE agreed that the Secretariat
should compile a list of the particular points made by the Drafting Group,
together with the items where they occurzed, within the next few weeks. This
list would then for the basis of further discussions in the Committee. The
Committee also agreed in principle that percentages given in the International
Lists referred always to weight unless specifically stated otherwise.
C O N F I D E N T I A L
Approved For Release 1999/09/16 : CIA-RDP62-00647A000200030021-5