INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION
RADIOCOMMUNICATION ADVISORY GROUP

GENEVA, 23-25 JANUARY 1995 Document RAG95/2-E
9 December 1994
Original: English
                               
                                                                  
                             Australia
                                 
                                 
        PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF ITU-R RECOMMENDATIONS AND
        ITS EFFECT ON PARTICIPATION IN STUDY GROUP MEETINGS


1    Introduction

     The 1990 Plenary Assembly adopted the procedure for approval
of Recommendations by ballot in the four-year period between
Plenary Assemblies. The main reasons for that decision were to
speed up the completion and approval of Recommendations and to
enable Plenary Assemblies to concentrate on management matters.

     Both objectives were achieved and the 1993 Radiocommunication
Assembly considered only a small number of Recommendations.
However, as a result of concerns by a few countries, it decided
that in the year of each future Assembly the ballot process would
not apply.

     Thus in 1994 some 190 Recommendations were approved by ballot,
but the 1995 Assembly will again have to consider many
Recommendations.

     From 1990 the procedure introduced a period of some months
between the Task Group/Working Party meetings that developed the
texts of Recommendations and the Study Group meeting that decided
on application of the ballot process. This was intended to enable
all administrations time to study the texts and, if they wished, to
take part in the Study Group decision process. This has shown
little benefit and some unintended and undesirable consequences.

     The details of the procedure should now be reconsidered so
that these problems may be overcome and the benefits of the ballot
process retained.


2    Participation in Study Group meetings

     There is no evidence that more countries participate in Study
Group meetings than previously. In fact the opposite is true,
particularly for countries remote from Geneva (like Australia)
which are subject to high travel costs and loss of time in
attending Study Group meetings of short duration.

     The effect of budgetary and time constraints inevitably means
that priority must be given to Task Group and Working Party
meetings. The direct result for Australia has been very limited
participation in Study Group meetings since 1990 and possibly no
participation in the May/June 1995 meetings even though they will
decide on submission of draft Recommendations to the
Radiocommunication Assembly.

     The consequence of this is that the benefits of full
participation in the decisions and management of Study Groups are
effectively lost to the Study Group and to countries like Australia
which participate actively in Task Groups and Working Parties.


3    Participation in the ballot process

     Examination of the results of the ballot process shows that
between 14 and 29 Member administrations (of some 180 ITU Members)
responded to each ballot during 1994. There is no indication that
administrations other than those participating in Task Groups and
Working Parties, are responding to ballots.


4    Proposals

4.1  Study Group meetings should be held adjacent in time and
location to associated Task Group and Working Party meetings.

     This would generally ensure that the appropriate experts would
attend, resulting in more effective decision-making and
participation in management of the Study Groups.

4.2  The ballot process should be retained and amended to align
with this change. This would speed up the approval process by
several months and would result in considerable cost savings as
white documents would no longer need to be mailed to all
administrations. (Blue documents would continue to be distributed.)

4.3  The ballot process should also be available in the year of a
Radiocommunication Assembly. This would speed up the approval
process and enable the Assembly to concentrate on management
matters.

4.4  Efficient and equitable arrangements for a Study Group meeting
in conjunction with Working Parties/Task Groups would be as
follows:

     - A short meeting of the Study Group to consider any matters
        arising from WP/TG meetings held since it last met, and to
        provide any additional guidance needed by WP/TGs. (It
        should be noted that SG 8 held a short information meeting
        in November 1994 at the commencement of its WP meetings,
        and that this was welcomed by participants.)

     - WP/TG meetings.

     - At the close of the WP/TG meetings a Study Group meeting
        which would decide, on the basis of Recommendations from
        WP/TGs, whether to put draft new and revised
        Recommendations to the ballot process. It would also deal
        with management and other matters.

     Note that if a Working Party or Task Group meets in isolation
from others it could be accompanied by a Study Group meeting
provided that this did not deal with matters affecting other
WP/TGs.

4.5  The above proposals may be more acceptable to ITU Members if a
specific provision is made in the procedure for Members to raise at
the Assembly any concern they have with a particular Recommendation
that has been approved by ballot.

     It is already accepted that, in a ballot, one or more votes
against a Recommendation does not prevent its adoption. If there
are any problems with a Recommendation they will be dealt with at
the next Task Group/Working Party meeting which may propose a
revision.


                             *******