Conference elects Directors of ITU's three Bureaux

Radiocommunication Bureau

Valery Timofeev (Russian Federation) was re-elected with near unanimous support as Director of the Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) on 13 November with 158 votes (from 160 countries present and voting). There was no other candidate for the post, which Mr Timofeev has held since the Plenipotentiary Conference in 2002. He said he was very pleased to report that BR had carried out all the programmes set four years ago. Speaking of the next term, he told the conference: “I expect once again to fulfil your expectations, owing to the high level of expertise available in BR.”

Mr Timofeev has extensive professional experience in the fields of radio-wave propagation, frequency spectrum planning, development of national EMC standards and the design of satellite communication and television and radio broadcasting systems. For many years, he was responsible for the international coordination of satellite communication systems and headed national delegations at frequency assignment coordination meetings. As Deputy Minister for Communications and Informatization of the Russian Federation, he was directly responsible for matters pertaining to radio-frequency spectrum management, the development of television and radio broadcasting and the deployment and operation of the national satellite communication and broadcasting systems.

Telecommunication Standardization Bureau

Malcolm Johnson (United Kingdom) was elected Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) on 14 November 2006 with 83 votes (with 162 countries present and voting). The majority emerged in the third round of voting, with Yuji Inoue of Japan receiving 79 votes. After the second round, Kishik Park from the Republic of Korea withdrew his candidature. Fabio Bigi of Italy withdrew after the first round.

After the vote Mr Johnson said: “I feel very humbled by the Plenipotentiary’s confidence in me and I shall be determined to meet the expectations.” After obtaining an MSc degree, Mr Johnson joined the UK government and in 1992 he became Director of the Radiocommunications Agency. In 2003, he joined the Office of Communications (Ofcom), where he was the International Coordinator with lead responsibility for the UK in ITU and at the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT). He is credited as having initiated many reforms in the Telecommunication Standardization Sector to speed-up the work and increase the role of the private sector. He chaired the Reform Group on standardization prior to the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference.

Telecommunication Development Bureau

Sami S. Al-Basheer (Saudi Arabia) was elected Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) on 14 November with 91 votes (with 161 countries present and voting) in a third round of voting. Patrick Masambu of Uganda received 70 votes. After the second round of the election, Najat Rochdi of Morocco withdrew her candidature, while Abdelkrim Karim Boussaid of Algeria withdrew after the first round.

Addressing the conference upon his election, Mr Al-Basheer pledged to work as a member of the team to achieve ITU’s goals and objectives. “The challenge is great, the task is heavy, but I am confident in our ability to serve the Union and all mankind,” he said.

After earning a Master's degree in Economics and Political Science from San Jose State University, California, in the United States, Mr Al-Basheer joined the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications (MoPTT) of Saudi Arabia. As Director of International Relations he was responsible for cooperation and coordination with regional and global telecommunication organizations. He also headed the department responsible for telecommunication policy and investment matters at the national, regional and international level.

Speaking after the election of the Directors of the Bureaux, Secretary-General Elect Hamadoun Touré invited them to join his management team, and said, “I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my newly elected colleagues: Deputy Secretary-General Houlin Zhao, the Director of BR, Mr Valery Timofeev, the Director of BDT, Mr Sami Al-Basheer, and the Director of TSB, Mr Malcolm Johnson. I wish them every possible success in their new duties, and invite them to demonstrate exemplary collegiality. For my part, I am committed to directing the team equitably, fairly and responsibly.” Dr Touré also expressed his gratitude to the outgoing team of Mr Utsumi and Mr Blois and thanked them for their assistance and support.

Details on the election of the Directors of the Bureaux are available at
www.itu.int/newsarchive/pp06/elections/results/directors.html (see also press release of 14 November available in several languages at www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2006/25.html ).

Contributory unit

The debate on establishing the definitive upper limit of the contributory unit began in Committee 6 on Tuesday, 14 November.

Egypt put forward two proposals to amend provisions in the Constitution through modifications to 161E of Article 28. This would entail determining the definitive upper limit of the contributory unit in the first week of the Plenipotentiary Conference and announcement of the definitive choice of class of contribution before elections are conducted. In addition, Egypt proposed that Member States should not be permitted to reduce their class of contribution if the upper limit decided by the conference does not exceed the provisional amount decided by the Council immediately preceding the conference. In any case, the reduction should not exceed one unit.

Egypt explained that this proposal intended to bring stability to ITU revenues. It was intended for the consideration of PP-10 but it could be discussed in a Council working group dealing with broader financial issues.

New Zealand did not see the correlation between the elections on the one hand and the determination of the contributory unit on the other. Gabon remarked that the Plenipotentiary is the supreme organ of the Union and should not be nitpicking with details. “We are losing our way here,” the delegate said. “Work must progress; if we go into details of establishing Council working groups and their chairmen we will never have time to complete our task.”

Mali and France reiterated the point made by Gabon, saying that the Council must be given latitude to work as they deem fit and report to the Plenipotentiary. The US recommended asking the Council to decide how to address the Egyptian proposal 53/2 and explore the full range of options. The Chairman asked a group comprising of Egypt, the US, France, Gabon and Mali to re-draft the proposal for submission to the Plenary.

The debate intensifies

The Committee continued discussion on determining the definitive upper limit of the contributory unit on 15 November as the figure had to be presented to the plenary Thursday, 16 November. It was decided that faxes should be sent to capitals at the earliest, but not later than Thursday evening. The deadline for the response from Member States was set at 2359 (CET) Monday, 20 November.

The tone was set for the debate by different schools of thought on how to balance income and expenditure. On the one hand, Portugal argued that the Union was in sound financial health and there was no reason to increase the contributory unit. The US supported “Option 1” in the draft financial plan: contributory unit of CHF 318 000 and a ratio of 1/5 payable by Sector Members.

Responding to a query from Portugal, the secretariat clarified that the expenditure estimates were based on calculations as of 1 January 2006 and additional costs at the rate of 1.5% per annum amounted to CHF 35 million. Additional posts over a period of four years were required for enhanced security amounting to CHF 1.8 million, two additional posts in IS department that would cost CHF 1 million and a post in the Finance Department which would require CHF 800 000. It was explained that this latter post was required to fill a critical human resource requirement to deal with the additional burdens of RBB, time-tracking and analytical accounting.

Indonesia pressed for a balanced budget to meet the objectives of the Strategic Plan and in order to achieve the twin goals of Results-based Budgeting (RBB) and Results-based Management (RBM). He stressed that introducing efficiency must not be at the expense of effectiveness. “If we must reach the goals, we have to look at resources,” the delegate said. “This is the practice in any good company or organization.” Indonesia pressed the case to fix the contributory unit at CHF 345 000.

Gabon’s view was that the Plenipotentiary should focus on broad, high-level issues and should address the major shortfall in the Union’s finances. The contributory unit of CHF 318 000 was agreed as a figure for calculating purposes, the delegate said, adding that a higher contributory unit was required to balance the budget. Argentina supported the second option in the draft Financial Plan: contributory unit of CHF 318 000 and a ratio of 1/4 payable by Sector Members.

Portugal, France and the US continued to press for “Option 1” arguing that ITU was not facing a financial crisis, as was evident from the surplus in the Reserve Fund, and should focus on cutting expenditure. Germany and Japan agreed, but qualified it by saying that the situation could be better. A view shared by some countries was that the efficiency measures initiated at Marrakesh had not yet been fully implemented.

Looking for consensus

The debate stretched late into the night. While Indonesia had suggested the highwater mark at CHF 345 000, the figure used most freely as the contributory unit was the provisional figure of CHF 318 000. “We have to find something between these two poles,” the Chairman told the Committee.

The secretariat presented figures related to the cost of participation of Sector Members in the Union along with revenue related to the ratio of 1/5 and ¼. “The figures speak for themselves,” Gabon said. “We must recover costs of services to cut the deficit.” The delegate remarked that while some Sector Members may withdraw it would allow better coverage of those remaining. But the ratio should be considered in line with the contributory unit. If that is raised to CHF 345 000, the ratio could remain at 1/5. The contributory unit could even be set at CHF 400 000 to cover costs.

Argentina joined Gabon, saying that the increment of contribution would be minimal as a result of a higher ratio and it would not lead to a reduction in membership. Several Member States, including Morocco and Mali joined the chorus for a higher ratio for Sector Members. Turkey said that even the higher ratio would not cover the costs.

The US remarked that the Committee was losing sight as the contribution from Sector Members was never meant for cost recovery. Not all of them are large companies and many are small and medium-sized enterprises. They find it difficult to pay travel costs to participate in ITU meetings and many participate as national delegates. New Zealand joined the discussion, reminding the Committee that without the private sector ITU would not be able to produce standards.

Indonesia countered by saying that large companies would not join national delegations and they would be happy to pay for the benefits they receive as Sector Members. Gabon added that everyone has to pay travel costs, even Member States from least developed countries.

As the hour was getting late and the debate continued unresolved, the Iranian delegate urged the Committee to find consensus and not proceed along the lines of the Marrakesh Plenipotentiary where the issue was brought to a vote.

Argentina agreed that consensus was needed and that everyone would like Sector Members to participate fully. The delegate suggested that the increase to the tune of CHF 4000 was not an insurmountable amount and that fears about reduction of membership were baseless. Indonesia added that this should not be seen as an adversarial position but as a shared responsibility. “A budget is a budget,” said Gabon. “What will I tell my Government? That we left ITU with no budget to perform?”

As the discussion veered from discussion on the ratio applicable to Sector Members and back to the definitive amount of the contributory unit, Indonesia expressed a sense of confusion, saying that discussion began with the ratio but moved to the contributory level without coming to a decision on the former. The delegate said that discussion on Results-based budgeting and Results-based Management should take into account the huge deficit.

Bargaining chips

While Brazil expressed support for “Option 2”, Argentina continued to press for an increase in the ratio. The Russian Federation on behalf of RCC countries favoured “Option 1”. Gabon called for an upper limit of CHF 330 000 or, alternatively, increase the ratio. Canada stated that the upper limit would cover the entire 2008-2011 quadrennial and the Council could decide in 2009 whether to continue with the level at CHF 318 000 for the contributory unit or increase it within the upper limit set now. Argentina suggested a way out of the impasse with a contributory unit of 318 000 for the first biennium with the possibility of raising it to the upper limit of CHF 330 000 in the second biennium, but on condition that the debate would remain open on increasing the ratio from 1/5 to ¼ as this had support of the majority.

As the clock ticked into the final minutes of the night session, the US threw its final proposal into the contributory unit hat: CHF 318 000 for the first biennium and CHF 325 000 for the next.

The agreement

The consensus, even though agreed with some reluctance from Indonesia and other developing countries, was presented to the plenary on Thursday morning, 16 November. Member States agreed on a definitive upper limit of the contributory unit of CHF 330 000 for the 2008-2011 quadrennial with the amount fixed at CHF 318 000 for the 2008-2009 biennium.

Indonesia noted its displeasure asserting that the agreement was reached owing to the limitations of time and expressed concern about meeting the deficit. Lebanon called for an increase of the ratio from 1/5 to ¼.

Paying up

Taking up modification to draft Resolution 41 on Arrears and Special Arrears Accounts, Mr Gracie of Canada explained that the changes were the outcomes of discussions within the Committee-6 working group. It was agreed by the group to add Associates to all references to Member States and Sector Members. More substantively, the document noted that a number of Member States and Sector Members have not submitted a repayment schedule. It instructs the Council to review schedules, including a maximum duration, which would be up to five years for developed countries and Sector Members, up to seven years for developing countries and ten years for least developed countries.

Argentina, which had proposed a 25-year limit, found support in Indonesia which sympathized with countries in serious arrears. Argentina asked for all the different proposed timeframes in square brackets as Committee-6 was too small to arrive at a final decision. Canada reiterated that ITU should be consistent with the UN system where the ten-year time frame was the norm. Gabon suggested that while the interest payment could be considered over a 25-year period, the principle should be repaid immediately.

Canada also pointed out that DT/16 also referred to considering in exceptional circumstances to write off interest on overdue payments if the defaulting member complied strictly with the agreed repayment schedules.

The secretariat clarified that some Members are in arrears exceeding CHF 1 million and others in greater debt which have not paid since 1971. The biggest debts amount to CHF 240 million.

The Chairman asked Argentina, Canada and Gabon to produce a consolidated text.

Satellite network filings

Discussion on the implementation of corrective measures relating to cost recovery on satellite network filings applied to outstanding invoices issued in 2002-2003. These could not be resolved as accounts had closed and were therefore brought before the Plenipotentiary “to consider the application of the corrective measures for the 2002-2003 biennium”. A list of satellites affected by the cancellation of filings is listed in Addendum 1 to Document 20(Rev.1).

Lao P.D.R. reminded delegates that PP-02 had set the date of 1 August 2003 to implement the Radio Regulations for cancelling satellite network filing for non-payment of dues. Prior to PP-02, this was not applicable. Those who did not file in time lost the rights attached to these cancelled filings and they would therefore be penalized twice if they had to pay the corresponding invoices. Lao P.D.R. is of the opinion that the issue of unpaid invoices should be resolved at PP-06 and proposed that unpaid invoices related to filings before 18 October 2002 should be written off.

Uruguay supported the Laotian proposal. The cancellations listed in the document were made before the Marrakesh meeting, and therefore it was unjust. “We should not keep dragging these cancelled debts,” the delegate said.

The US said that in general it held the opinion that all cost-recovery fees should be paid. But based on the Laotian input, the US has reconsidered its position and reviewed the history of this issue. The delegate referred to ITU circular letter CR/139 dated 24 March 2000 and CR/179 which may have caused some confusion. It is clear that the cut-off date should be prior to 1 January 2002. The US recommends that the Laotian resolution should be modified based on CR/179.

According to the Iranian delegate it was the prerogative of the Plenipotentiary to rule on corrective issues and that the 2002-2003 matter could be resolved. He also asked what the financial implications would be and how much would have to be taken from the Reserve account, which now amounts to about CHF 30 million, to undertake the corrective measures. Spain said that only the Plenipotentiary can authorize cancellation of debts, but the expenditure cannot be reflected in the 2008-2011 financial quadrennial. The secretariat clarified that the financial implications for the corrective measures in the 2002-2003 period would amount to CHF 6.1 million.

Norway summed up the debate, saying that too much time and effort had been spent on this issue. “We have discussed this issue at length in Minneapolis, and then in Marrakesh and now we are doing it again in Antalya,” the delegate said. “We have to put an end to this old issue and settle it here and now. There should be no spill over.” In order to put a lid on it, Norway was prepared to be generous, he added. Gabon agreed, saying we cannot let this drag on from conference to conference.

The Chairman asked the Iranian delegate to lead a group on the corrective measures for 2002-2003 and to examine the proposal of Lao P.D.R.
 

Committee 5
Advisory Groups

No headway had been made by Tuesday (14 November) when discussion resumed on the question of whether or not to align the “twin” provisions of the Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) and the Telecommunication Development Advisory Group (TDAG) to that of the Radiocommunication Advisory Group (RAG). All countries remained on their positions according to the United States that is leading the negotiations on this issue (see Highlights Nos 5 and 6). The United States had proposed at the beginning of the conference that while there should be no change to provision 160A governing RAG, provisions 197A dealing with TSAG and 215C, dealing with TDAG should be amended to align them to 160A in order to establish a uniform reporting back line across all three Sectors. Provision 160A reads: “The radiocommunication advisory group shall be open to representatives of administrations of Member States and representa¬tives of Sector Members and to chairmen of the study groups and other groups, and will act through the Director”. The American proposal seeks to add these last words “and will act through the Director” at the end of provisions 197A and 215C to align the advisory groups. In the case of RAG, the “no change” to 160A, as explained by the US, would continue affording the Director of the Radiocommunication Bureau “the advantage of being the focal point for advice from the Sector’s Advisory Group”.

The Chairman of Committee 5 said that it may not be possible in all cases, or it may not even be necessary to harmonize provisions across Sectors, and stressed that consultations continue with that in mind. He urged the US to come up with a conclusion one way or the other.

Reporting back on Wednesday (15 November), there was still no progress. Some delegations suggested that a status quo was perhaps the only way out. “Sadly, we do not see the rationale for a status quo,” was the US response. The US delegate added that other delegations should not be dismissive of the proposal tabled.

Accredited media can download hi-res photos on PP-06 from www.itu.int/plenipotentiary/2006/newsroom/photos/index.asp using their username and password.