SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE ITU RADIOCOMMUNICATION

UNCLAS STATE 037998 PASS IEA FOR DAVID SALAZAR E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECPS ITU SUBJECT: SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE ITU RADIOCOMMUNICATION ADVISORY GROUP, FEBRUARY 4-6, 2009 ¶1. Summary. The sixteenth meeting of the International Telecommunication Union,s (ITU) Radiocommunication Advisory Group (RAG) met in Geneva, from 4-6 February 2009, under the chairmanship of Mr. J.B. Yao Kouakou (Cote d,Ivoire). The meeting was attended by 104 delegates representing 41 Member States, and 12 Sector Members, including two international organizations. The U.S. delegation was led by the Department of State. It consisted of nine delegates, 4 from government and 5 from the private sector. High points of the meeting included clarification of working methods used by the Study Groups (SG),the scope of the Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) staff participation in workshops and seminars sponsored by the ITU, the biennial budget for 2010-2011, and electronic document handling. The U.S. met all of its objectives for this meeting. End summary. ¶2. Scope of BR staff participation in BR sponsored workshops. The United States presented a document giving U.S. views on BR staff participation in ITU sponsored workshops. This contribution was prompted by recent BR staff presentations on policy matters such as spectrum auctions, fees, and trading of interference rights. The U.S. contribution suggested that BR staff refrain from addressing policy initiatives in public forums, and instead focus on technical, administrative and regulatory issues that are within their areas of expertise. The U.S. contribution led to a spirited debate on the role of BR staff. The Director of the BR requested the floor immediately after the presentation of the contribution to defend BR staff participation in workshops, but then stated that he would take the U.S. suggestions under advisement and personally take responsibility for BR staffs, public presentations. In other interventions, Canada and the Arab Group strongly supported the U.S. view, cautioning that presentation documents live on beyond the event in which they are given, and, noting that policy initiatives are within the province of member administrations, and not the ITU. European administrations, on the other hand, stated their belief that it is acceptable for the ITU staff to generate policy initiatives. Obviously no decision was taken as the RAG is only an advisory group, but the Director clearly understood the U.S. suggestions and explicitly said he would take note. The European interventions appear to expose a significant and serious departure of views on the ITU,s role, apparently indicating support for its expansion to something beyond service to its membership. ¶3. Study Questions based on WRC Resolutions or Recommendations. The United States introduced a contribution that noted that new study questions based on WRC Resolutions or Recommendations are permitted by the Constitution and Convention, and that such questions should be allowed when direction provided by the WRC is vague. This document resulted in a lengthy debate. In order to provide clarification for administrations that indicated they were unclear regarding the intent of the U.S. contribution, the U.S. delegation explained that when a WRC gives direction through Resolution or Recommendation, No. 149A of the Convention and Resolution ITU-R 5-5 provides that ITU-R studies may begin without the need for adopting an associated study Question. However, these provisions do not prohibit the adoption of a question in situations where WRC direction is vague or non-existent. A study question serves to focus the work of the SGs by stating agreed upon technical boundaries within which the studies should be conducted. Thus it avoids debate at each meeting on whether contributions are within the scope of what should be studied. Despite the organization,s own rules, with the exception of Canada, the meeting was not willing to clearly state that there is no prohibition to adopting a new Study Question on a topic for which there exists a WRC Resolution or Recommendation. The meeting did acknowledge that direction from WRCs on study matters could be vague, and to address how SGs should proceed in these cases, stated that "(T)o ensure that sufficient information is provided to the membership on the topic concerned, additional information could be included in the Summary Records or Chairman,s Reports of the relevant SGs, thereby enabling the membership to fully study the topic without the need to pursue the adoption and approval of a new Question." ¶4. Studies Undertaken Without underlying Questions. In response to a contribution from Canada, the RAG noted that in accordance with ITU-R 5-5 Section 10, it is the current understanding that once studies are completed the SGs are to develop Reports and/or Recommendations based on the studies coming from the SGs, whether or not an underlying Question exists, and further process them for adoption and approval, as appropriate. ¶5. Referencing the Radio Regulations (RR) in Recommendations. Based on a Canadian contribution, the RAG noted that the need to refer to specific provisions of the RRs in a Recommendation is a matter to be left to the wisdom of SGs and their Chairs, based on a consensus reached by the group. The RAG also noted that there is no prohibition to including a specific reference to provisions of the RR in a Recommendation, but SGs should avoid interpretations of the referenced RRs. ¶6. Sending Recommendations for Approval. RAG took note of a Canadian contribution "inviting the Member States attending a Study Group meeting and opposing the consideration of a Recommendation for adoption to present technical reasons for the objection in writing at that meeting." In this regard, RAG, taking into account the relevant part of section 10.2 of Resolution ITU-R 1-5, invites the Chairs of the SGs to encourage the opposing Member States to give their written technical reasons for objecting to a draft Recommendation at the meeting where the objection is raised. RAG noted that if this did not occur then the SG or Working Party would be unable to address the objection or to further work on the Recommendation. ¶7. Protection Criteria and Sharing Criteria. A contribution from Italy asked the RAG to endorse the role of the SGs in defining protection criteria relating to the services covered within their scope. Following many interventions expressing views on SG responsibilities for sharing studies and protection criteria, the meeting advised that sharing studies involving sub-working groups or Working Parties (WPs) from more than one SG may include the following cases: --- The development of relevant protection criteria pertaining to a given radio service should remain within the WP (or SG) responsible for the service. This WP or SG will initiate the study in question and liaise with other WPs involved to progress the work. Once the work is mature and mutually agreed by the WPs involved, the output in the form of a new or revised Recommendation and/or Report, as appropriate, would be submitted to the parent Study Group of the WP that initiated the study for formal actions on the adoption and approval procedures. The final product would become part of the SG documentation. --- The main objective during the development of sharing studies is to continually improve the efficient use of the spectrum/orbit resource for the benefit of all users. This is often driven by new technological advances and by new applications. In this case, the role of the WP responsible for the new applications is important when conducting the sharing studies with the caveat that it is also essential to take into consideration the protection requirements of the existing systems. The WP responsible for the new application could initiate the sharing studies and liaise with the other WPs involved to progress the work. Once the work is mature and mutually agreed by the WPs involved, the output in the form of a new or revised Recommendation and/or Report would be formally adopted and maintained by the SG responsible for the new application. ¶8. Chair/Vice-Chair (CVC-15). Dr. Kevin Hughes (Head of the SG Department) gave a brief report on the 15th meeting of Chairs and Vice-Chairs of the Radiocommunication Study Groups. The business of this meeting covered five topics: the status of activities associated with CPM-11 and preparations for WRC-11; working methods of SGs; treatment of issues involving more than one SG; liaison activities; and an oral report on the work in CCV. Mr. Hughes noted the emphasis being placed on electronic working methods within the ITU. He also pointed to an input to the CVC-15 from the Chair of SG 4 that discussed delays many of the SGs experience in the development and approval of Recommendations due to misinterpretations of the working methods outlined in Resolution ITU-R-5. All present agreed to the importance for the SGs to produce good quality outputs in a timely manner. It noted that the failure to do so could jeopardize the relevance of ITU-R Recommendations, particularly for industry. ¶9. Resolution 647. Resolution 647 (WRC-07),Spectrum Management Guidelines for Emergency and Disaster Relief Radiocommunication encourages administrations to maintain available frequencies for use in the very early stages of humanitarian assistance intervention for disaster relief and first responders. It also provides for administrations to provide relevant, up-to-date information to the BR concerning national frequency allocations and spectrum management practices for emergency and disaster relief communications. Most administrations have not submitted this information. The Department of State will coordinate with the FCC and NTIA to submit publicly available information requested by Resolution 647, recognizing that some frequencies are protected due to national security. ¶10. Electronic Document Handling (EDH). The report of the Coordinator of the Correspondence Group on EDH was presented by Mr. Bruce Gracie. Of particular note was that the RAG recognized the need to make available a limited number of paper copies of the documents to delegates upon demand. RAG noted that interpreters also need paper copies to facilitate their work when required. ¶11. Budget. The RAG noted the report from the Director of the Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) on the estimated biennial budget for 2010-2011. The Director explained that the figures were preliminary and under discussion within the Secretariat. He indicated that he would be presenting the first draft budget proposal for consideration of the Management and Budget Group in June based on a balanced expense/income budget. ¶12. WRC-11 preparations. The Chief of ITU Conferences and Publications (C&P) Department provided information on the status of the consultations foreseen in Council Resolution 1291 relating to a definitive choice of venue and dates for WRC-11. Regarding venue, the ITU has received no official invitation from a Member State wishing to host WRC-11, and therefore WRC-11 will be in Geneva. As for dates, Council 2008 noted that the originally proposed dates were 24 October-18 November 2011. Council,s attention was drawn to the provisions of Resolution 111 (Rev.Antalya, 2006) calling for account to be taken of the dates of religious periods when drawing up schedules of conferences and assemblies of international organizations. To hold WRC-11 during a period that does not overlap with Eid al-Adha holidays, which in 2011 occurs on 6 November, two options were considered. Both options would necessitate other organizations, who have already booked the CICG, to agree to change the dates of their conferences. Consultations to date have not met with success, but the Department will continue to attempt to change the dates. ¶13. IARU booklet. RAG expressed appreciation to the IARU for making available to the delegates a booklet containing the WRC-11 agenda and relevant Resolutions. ¶14. Operational Plan. RAG reviewed the draft ITU-R Operational Plan for 2010-2013 and invited the Director to collect comments that might be formulated by RAG members before the final version is submitted for the 2009 session of the Council. RAG also considered the 2008 Performance Report and congratulated the BR for last year,s good results. ¶15. Date of next meeting. The next RAG meeting is tentatively scheduled for 17-19 February 2010 in Geneva. The definitive dates will be established in coordination with the meeting of advisory groups of the two other sectors. CLINTON