Meeting of Signatories and intended Signatories

(Geneva, 3-4 April 1997)


Information Document 2-E
1 April 1997
English only




1 Abstract

(a) Definition of GMPCS

"GMPCS" includes at least MSS, at present. From the point of view regarding the definition of "Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite", FSS is not included. However, there is no clear discrimination between MSS and FSS, taking the content of MoU into consideration.

(b) The relationship between MoU itself and the arrangement

The arrangement is separated from MoU itself. Signature will be made individually. The signature of MoU means that the signatory would support the aim of the MoU.

With regard to the arrangement, taking into consideration that the arrangement should accommodate as many signatories as possible, it would be desirable that they could sign article by article. If it is not possible, signature with some reservations should be allowed.

(c) Legal nature of the arrangement

It is confirmed that MoU itself is not of legal-binding nature. Also, the arrangement should not be of legal-binding nature. However, when implementing this arrangement on a national level, administrations are urged to ensure that relevant national regulations could support the full realization of the goals of this arrangement.

(d) Depository and management

The depository should be the Secretary-General of the ITU. Therefore, the ITU should manage the MoU.

2 Detailed discussion

(a) Technical approval

i) The base of the technical approval

Basically, it should be the ITU recommendations. It would not be appropriate to include regional standard. If such regional standard is applied, the applicable region (or countries) should be limited.

ii) The extent of mutual recognition

It is agreeable at this time that GMPCS terminals could be brought into a visited country and use it without the need for obtaining authorization in the visited country. However, mutual recognition of equipment approval is currently under discussion on multi-lateral and/or bi-lateral basis. It would be premature to include such mutual recognition, and will be discussed in the future. (maybe included in the item of review.)

(b) Licensing

"General license" does not mean a specific type of licensing. Therefore, it would be clearer to express the terms as "in the form of a general license".

(c) Identification

Free circulation will be allowed by participating Administrations for terminals which have been licensed in accordance with this arrangement by a participating Administration and which have an appropriate identification.

(d) Recommendation on customs

Participating Administrations will inform their customs authorities, if necessary, concerning the identifications issued in accordance with this arrangement so that authorized GMPCS terminals could pass their customs without undue delay and/or restriction.

(e) Access to Traffic Data

Consistent with applicable national legislation in the country where GMPCS service is being provided, GMPCS operators will provide, on a confidential basis, within a reasonable period of time to any duly authorized national authority which so requests, appropriate traffic data originating in or routed to its national territory, and will assist with any measures intended to identify to identify unauthorized traffic flows.

On the other hand, it should be realized that in some countries national service providers is prohibited to reveal communications of individuals to anyone.

(f) IPR (Intellectual Property Right)

In order to facilitate free circulation of GMPCS terminals, it would be appropriate that the specification could be open to public on a non-discriminatory basis with reasonable cost. This issue may be discussed in the future and be included as the issues in the review.

(g) Terrestrial terminals in dual-mode ones

It is recognizable at present that terrestrial terminals is not included in GMPCS. Therefore, it should be desirable for free circulation of terrestrial terminals to establish another MoU. However, if regulatory procedures for terrestrial terminals are left as it is, some procedures might be imposed on those dual-mode terminals. It will not be inconsistent with the idea of free circulation of GMPCS terminals. Therefore, it would be categorized as "permitted to carry those terminals into a visited country but not to use it".