Informal Group


Geneva, 14 February 1997

Comments of the Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation
on the Memorandum of Understanding

Pursuant to Opinion 4 of the first World Telecommunication Policy Forum and your letter ref. SPU/EA/KB/ml of 13 November 1996, we have the pleasure to submit in attachment hereto our initial comments on the draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to facilitate the free circulation of Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite user terminals for consideration during future meetings on the MoU.

Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation will continue to actively participate in the subsequent activities related to the MoU in particular and implementation of the GMPCS services in general.

Comments on the draft Memorandum of Understanding for the free circulation of
user terminals for Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite

Uganda Posts and Telecommunications Corporation has the following initial comments.

1) An article to the effect that the arrangements should consider the sovereign right of each state to regulate its telecommunications as reflected in the Constitution of the ITU should be included in the GMPCS-MoU. In general, voluntary principles which are related to the free circulation should be reflected in the MoU without need to refer to the WTPF-96 report.

2) The GMPCS-MoU should have an article specifying the eligible parties to the MoU and where applicable roles and obligations expected of the different categories of parties.

3) Level 2 of free circulation i.e., [permission to carry a terminal into a visited country and to use it without the need for obtaining authorization in the visited country] should take into consideration that GMPCS operators are required to limit their operations in areas where they are authorized. So, this level of circulation shall only be valid in states where the specific GMPCS system operator has been authorized.

4) Levels 1 and 2 call upon arrangements to facilitate data interchange between service providers of the visited countries and the original country of registration. The Parties should develop arrangements for this type of data interchange. Parties should develop arrangements that would facilitate commercial agreements between the different countries.

5) The role of ITU as depository for the GMPCS-MoU is reflected in the opinion but not the MoU. It is important it appears as an article in the GMPCS-MoU as well.

6) It should be clear that being a signatory to the GMPCS-MoU will not mean acceptance of free circulation of user terminals within the signatory countries until specific agreements are reached by the specific operators concerned.

7) Arrangements for providing access to traffic data should define some time limits within which to provide the requested data.

8) There is need for an arbitration clause in the MoU.