(Geneva, 3 &4 April 1997) | |
______________________________________________________________________________
11 April 1997
7.1 documents which required the signature of ITU Member States
would be produced in the six official ITU languages;
7.2 working documents of meetings would be produced in the three
usual ITU working languages;
7.3 following the policy established for the WTPF, information
documents would be produced and distributed at the expense of
those wishing to provide them;
7.4 since there are no provisions in the ITU budget to fund the
work of the GMPCS-MoU group, language costs - as well as all others
- would need to be supported through voluntary contributions.
8. Following the presentation of working and information documents,
the Chairman called for a general discussion of items related
to all three GMPCS-MoU projects, in order to identify the points
on which further work needed to be done so that revised versions
of the draft arrangements could be prepared overnight by the Vice-Chairmen
for consideration the following day. Among the main points of
discussion were the following:
8.1 With respect to project 1 (Type Approval and Marking) much
of the discussion centred on the question of how best to reconcile
the different legal and regulatory regimes that exist in different
countries. There was general agreement that different approaches
might be taken in the short term to facilitate the early introduction
of GMPCS, and in the longer term through the possible development
of global mutual recognition arrangements.
8.2 With respect to project 2 (Licensing) there was general satisfaction
with the draft arrangements proposed in working document 2.
8.3 With respect to project 3 (Customs and Traffic Data), there
was general agreement that the issues should be de-linked and
treated as separate arrangements.
- With respect to customs, there was discussion on the nature
of arrangements which would be appropriate to a domain which falls
outside the competence of GMPCS-MoU participants. Distinctions
were made between the arrangements appropriate to terminals brought
into a country for personal use vis-à-vis terminals brought
into a country to be placed on the market. In the former case,
it was suggested that the Istanbul Convention might provide a
useful precedent for dealing with GMPCS terminals for personal
use. In the latter case, normal customs provisions would apply,
and it was suggested that the recent World Trade Organization
(WTO) Agreement on Information Technology might provide useful
precedents.
- With respect to traffic data, discussion revolved around the
nature of the data to be provided by GMPCS operators, the capability
of different classes of GMPCS systems to provide this data. It
was generally agreed that aggregate data would be appropriate
and that it would be unreasonable to retroactively apply requirements
to GMPCS systems which had not been designed with a positioning
capability. However, this latter point would be a matter for
each country to decide on the basis of a balance between costs
and benefits. It was also generally agreed that a distinction
should be made between data requested from a GMPCS service provider
by a national regulator as a result of a licensing agreement between
them, and data requested by from a GMPCS system operator by a
national regulator who had not authorized the provision of GMPCS
services using that system. It was also agreed that a further
distinction that may need to be made in these two cases is whether
the national regulator is a party to the arrangement. It was
further generally agreed that the former relationship posed no
unusual problems and was part of the normal licensing process.
However, it was recognized that the latter relationship raised
new issues which might involve mutual commitments between national
regulators as well as between regulators and GMPCS system operators
and service providers.
9. Throughout this discussion, the Chairman emphasized that the
arrangements to be developed under the GMPCS-MoU are not intended
to be a treaty or to substitute for national laws and regulations.
Rather, they would provide a set of principles or guidelines
which Member States who are parties to the arrangements would
commit themselves to implementing in their national laws and regulations,
in the manner and to the extent they saw fit, with the possibility
of withdrawing from the arrangements if they so wished. At the
same time, non-government parties would also commit to applying
these principles in their activities. The arrangements developed
under the GMPCS-MoU were therefore not intended to be "global
regulations" and no attempt would be made in the short term
to develop a uniform set of arrangements applicable to every participating
country, even though such a possibility might be considered in
the longer run. However, although adherence to the GMPCS-MoU
and to the arrangements developed under it was voluntary, once
commitments had been made and as long as they were maintained,
parties should consider themselves bound to respect their commitments.
10. When the meeting resumed the next day, it had before it revised
working papers that had been prepared overnight by the project
leaders with the assistance of informal working groups. On the
basis of the previous day's discussion, the Chairman proposed
that four sets of draft arrangements should be prepared for consideration
at the next meeting - for type approval and marking; licensing;
customs; and traffic data. Before addressing the substance of
the revised working documents, the Chairman asked for views on
the format of the draft arrangements that should be prepared.
11. In the ensuing discussion, there was general agreement that
the four arrangements should be encapsulated in a single document.
This document would have a preamble referring to the ITU Constitution
and Convention, Opinions 2 and 4 of the WTPF and to the GMPCS
MoU, and separate chapters on each of the arrangements, each of
which would require a signature or commitment by an appropriate
authority who would need to be defined. It was confirmed that
parties to the arrangements would include GMPCS system operators,
service providers, manufacturers, as well as national regulators.
12. Since the arrangements are intended to set out principles
or guidelines that would be applied in each country according
to its own legal framework and traditions, ways would have to
be found to accommodate this diversity. It was suggested that
this might be done by developing a standard form for scheduling
commitments and listing limitations under each of the arrangements;
if maintained and updated as a database, this would facilitate
comparison and understanding of the situation in different countries.
An alternative would be for parties to express reservations.
It was pointed out that since the arrangements are intended to
confer benefits on parties, limitations in their application would
necessarily be reflected in limitations on benefits. Questions
were also raised about dispute settlement mechanisms and about
the legal effect of the arrangements. The Chairman undertook
to look at these questions in more detail before the next meeting,
and stressed the need to approach the question in a positive spirit
with the aim of facilitating the early introduction of GMPCS to
the mutual benefit of all signatories and consumers in particular.
13. In drafting arrangements for consideration at the next meeting,
it was agreed that as in the GMPCS MoU, references should be to
"circulation" rather than "free circulation",
to "will" rather than "shall" and that reference
should be made to regional systems throughout to reflect the title
of the MoU. Further thought would also be given to the definition
of GMPCS for purposes of the arrangements, including the question
of how to accommodate GMPCS services provided from a single satellite
instead of a constellation.
14. In summing up, the Chairman proposed the following way of
proceeding:
14.1 on the basis of the discussions, the project leaders would
re-draft the arrangements and cast them in a single document;
14.2 the revised draft arrangements would be disseminated by the
end of April with an invitation to comment;
14.3 on the basis of the comments received, a core group would
be convened by the Chairman to resolve outstanding issues and
prepare an improved draft for consideration at the next meeting
of the GMPCS MoU group;
14.4 although 16-17 June had been tentatively identified as the
date of the next meeting, this posed a problem because of a CITEL
meeting at the same time;
14.5 participants were requested to keep those dates free in their
agendas as the possible date of a core group meeting;
14.6 the date of the next meeting would be confirmed at the end
of April when the revised draft arrangements are disseminated.
15. This procedure was agreed and the meeting adjourned.