The Working Group on ITU Reform has recommended that Sector Members be given observer status in the meetings of council, while leaving it to advisory groups to develop criteria for the selection of those observers. As well, observers would be given the right to participate actively in the Standing Committee on Finance of the Council, but without the right to vote.

An Arab States Common Proposal * noted that the current status of observers is spread between the Convention, Constitution, and various ITU Resolutions. The Arab States are proposing a new article that would consolidate in the Convention the rights of different categories of observers, which range from Member States in the Council to those from the specialized agencies of the United Nations. France, representing the European Common proposal, agrees that observer status is ‘dispersed’ in the ITU instruments, but proposed a resolution that would create a Group of Experts whose goal it would be to clarify and consolidate the status of Observers at ITU conferences, assemblies and meetings. This group would then report back to PP-06. There was broad support for the European proposal (US, Australia, Japan, Cuba), with Canada adding that ‘accountability and transparency’ be the guiding principles for this Expert group. A drafting committee was formed to see if a compromise resolution based on the Arab States and European proposals could be reached.

A European Common Proposal resolution, based directly on Recommendation 20, was then proposed, with similar CITEL and Arab States resolutions following. The Chairmen, after receiving unanimous support for the WGR recommendation, asked the authors of the three proposals to draft a common resolution for consideration by Committee 5.

ITU established the upper limit for the definition of radio waves in ITU instruments at 3 000 GHz in 1947. Today, CITEL, the Inter-American group of Member States, proposed eliminating this upper limit. New Zealand then demonstrated the ‘arbitrary’ nature of this frequency limit by citing the example of a radio transmitter oscillating at 3 000 GHz. It would definitely be considered a radio wave, but should it vary 1 GHz upwards it would no longer be considered a radio wave.

CITEL noted that radiocommunication technologies are beginning to demonstrate the potential of electromagnetic waves above the 3 000 GHz limit and that ITU study groups are actively considering those technologies (for example in optical fibre communications). A number of Member States supported removing the upper limits in order to provide ITU the flexibility in dealing with future technological developments. However, a European Common proposal suggested that many states define their national radio regulations according to the ITU definition, so that any change to this would have a direct impact on their national policies. The United States disagreed, noting that many developing countries accept changes to the ITU Radio Regulations even before changing their own regulations. Nigeria then expressed its support for removing the frequency limit saying it was more concerned with restrictions the existing limit may place on technological developments, than with the limit itself.

The Chairman asked that there be consultations outside the Committee amongst the experts in this area and return with the fruits of their discussion later in the Committee.

Today Committee 6 reviewed and approved the remaining proposed revisions to Resolution 11 (Minneapolis, 1998), which will be passed on to the Editorial Committee for fine-tuning. Firstly, the Committee resolved the issue on the proposal to replace "a significant part" of any surplus income over expenditure derived from the activities of Telecom by a fixed percentage (see Highlights N° 7). A compromise was reached to include in the Resolution an instruction that would direct the Council to fix an amount each year to be used as extrabudgetary income for the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT), for specific telecommunication development projects, primarily in the least developed countries.

The Secretary-General is also being asked to report on TELECOM activities in a separate annual report to the Council which is to include an account of all TELECOM business activities; activities of the TELECOM Board; reasons for the actual selection of venues for future world and regional TELECOMs; on future events and their financial implications, on the future strategy and on risks to be considered; on action taken with respect to the use of surplus income. Finally, he is requested to ensure the internal control and internal audit of the accounts for the different TELECOM activities.

For its part, the Council would take a stronger oversight role, and is required to review the annual report on TELECOM activities and give guidance on future trends for those activities. Its role will also include the review and approval of the TELECOM accounts after examining the report of the internal and external auditors of the Union; the use of TELECOM surplus funds; the Secretary-General’s proposals on the mandate and principles governing the composition of the TELECOM Board, and finally, the Secretary-General’s proposals on the principles of a transparent decision-making process to select the venues of world and regional TELECOM events, including the criteria to serve as a basis of that process. 

Strong views were expressed in Committee 6 for and against revising Article 28 of the Constitution on the "Finances of the Union". Click here for the full text of Article 28. Those against a revision argued that it is still early days and that the procedures outlined in that article were the subject of arduous negotiations in Minneapolis and the result of a delicate balance. Besides, they have not been tested. One delegation pointed out that the article touches on the fundamental rights and obligations of Member States, and should not be discussed in an ad hoc group. Those calling for a revision insisted that some of the time frames, for example that for fixing the definitive upper limit of the amount of the contributory unit, were seriously flawed and needed review. For example, under current procedure, all Member States, including those not present at a Plenipotentiary Conference, are given only a few days between the time the definitive upper limit is approved and the deadline to inform the Secretariat of their class of contribution (information needed by the Conference to finalize the Financial Plan). Given the time to evaluate the impact of the choice of the class of contribution which in principle commits Member States for four years, such a tight schedule makes the whole process an almost impossible task. In the end, an ad hoc group was set up with a restricted mandate.

The Working Group on ITU Reform recommended that the revenues generated by the BDT in implementing funds-in-trust and other similar projects be maintained for development projects. In order to do so, the support-cost expenditures for these projects should be outside the limitation on expenditure of the Union (see Recommendation 11 in Document 31).

A number of delegations expressed support for this recommendation. However, Japan expressed the fear that the strong linkage of the funds-in-trust with BDT activities (meaning if these funds are left to go directly to BDT) could in the long-term cause financial problems for the Union. These funds should therefore be left in the Reserve Account. Supporting this view, the United States expressed its concern over the status of the Reserve Account, adding that it would maintain its stance on WGR Recommendation 11 as long as ways have not been found to replenish the Reserve Account.

Other delegations asked for more information from BDT on current practice in order to determine whether new mechanisms are needed to ensure that there is accountability and transparency in the use of these funds.

In the afternoon, Committee 6 launched into a debate on the financial implications of the draft Financial Plan for 2004-2007, including the various programme proposals and options that have been tabled to date. The debate was based on a new document containing the detailed information which the Committee has been asking for in order to press ahead with its mandate. This document includes a column with "recosted" anticipated salary adjustments, inflation, and the effect on the exchange rate as at 1 October 2002 and not 1 January 2002 used as a basis for the original Plan. The debate focused on whether all items were really necessary and touched upon prioritization of activities to balance the Financial Plan taking into account the "recosted" figures. Given today's room temperature, the discussion ahead promises to be tough, as some bold decisions and tough choices may have to be made.