That's a really good question.
There are always two ways of looking at it. I will give you my opinion. Strategically, it was a good move to leave them out. As a practitioner, I normally like to have everything neatly in one agreement so that I don't have to go looking for the various pieces and parts.
We are currently in a WTO negotiation. The Doha Round is still alive--maybe it's not so well, but it's still alive. Rather than putting all the services on the table right now, it was a good move strategically to keep that back, in my opinion. They said they will negotiate it over the next two or three years. I think that is the provision. When you go the GATT, which is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and GATT article V, that's what you have to do when you enter into a services free trade agreement.
There are other countries that have divided up goods and services. What we've done isn't unique. There are many agreements. The EU-Mexico agreement is a perfect example of where it's been done in the past.
What we have to do, under GATT article V, is liberalize in substantially all sectors. Under the WTO, we've divided services between 150 and 160 sectors. So substantially all, whatever that means--90% or more--need to be liberalized. And then within those sectors we need to, again, liberalize substantially all the services within the subsector.
Rather than putting it all on the table right now, while we're in the middle of a negotiation, holding it back and saying that within the next three years we'll know what's happening at the WTO on the services negotiation.... It's a very unique time. Normally, I probably wouldn't be saying this as an academic and as a practitioner. I normally would be saying that I wish it was all one nice, neat little package. But given the unique circumstances, it's not an unwise move to have this delayed.