Strategy for the future

The Strategic Plan was adopted by Committee 6 with an ovation for its Chairman, Ms Marie-Odile Beau of France and for the secretariat for arriving at a difficult compromise. The Chairman of Committee 6 said: “The Strategic Plan, shepherded by Ms Beau, would provide the philosophy for years to come.”

The Committee agreed to use the term “telecommunications/ICT” as agreed at Doha and in keeping with the evolution of text in other Committees of the Plenipotentiary.

Trinidad and Tobago asked why Key Performance Indicators (KPI) were not reflected adequately in the document. “Without KPI, the Strategic Plan would remain just a document,” the delegate remarked. “We will not be able to measure the results.”

Canada said that KPI could find relevance in the linkage between the Strategic and Operational plans. Acknowledging the value of the comment from Trinidad and Tobago, Ms Beau added text to reflect the importance of the evaluation process in the KPI concept.

Indonesia’s suggestion too was added to the document and refers to “harnessing the potential of the world’s population living in underserved areas to enter the information society”.

The ITU Strategic Plan for 2008-2011 notes the challenges the Union faces in the rapidly changing telecommunication/ICT environment. It invites Member States to strengthen ITU’s effectiveness in fulfilling its objectives. The new Strategic Plan sets out seven goals that will enable ITU carry out its main mission of fostering “the sustained development of telecommunications/ICT networks and to facilitate universal access, so that people everywhere can participate in and benefit from the emerging Information Society.”
 

A way forward for International Telecommunication Regulations

A milestone was reached on Sunday (19 November) in Committee 5 with the unanimous adoption of a new resolution on the “Review of the International Telecommunication Regulations” (ITR). The new resolution calls for a world conference on international telecommunications (WCIT) to be “convened at the seat of the Union in 2012”, on the basis of recommendations that will result from this review. It instructs the Council to adopt by 2011 the agenda and fixed dates for holding a WCIT. This has been one of the most complex issues for Committee 5, according to the Committee’s Chairman.

Why are the International Telecommunication Regulations so important? The new resolution considers that treaty-level provisions are required with respect to international telecommunication networks and services. It also notes that as technology evolves, countries are evaluating their policy and regulatory approaches to ensure an enabling environment that fosters supportive, transparent, pro-competitive, and predictable policies, as well as legal and regulatory frameworks that provide appropriate incentives to invest in, and develop, the information society. It says that ITU can play an important role in facilitating a discussion of new and emerging issues, including those that arise from the changing international telecommunication environment.

The International Telecommunication Regulations were last amended in Melbourne (Australia) in 1988. For a number of countries, such as the United States, the ITR continue to be relevant in today's world as billions of dollars of international telecommunications traffic are successfully settled under the treaty’s current provisions. The US had argued in its proposal that the system for global traffic exchange as established under the framework of the ITR worked well. Also, the current regulations are seen to be critical to the exchange of telecommunication traffic across borders facilitating global interconnection and interoperability of technical facilities. For countries that firmly expressed this position, any attempt to terminate or modify such an important treaty had to be assessed in the light of the benefits gained from it, and had to take into account these principles (see Highlights No. 3 for regional, common positions on this issue).

The agreement brokered on Sunday is the result of work in the Ad Hoc Group that was set up at the beginning of the conference. The group met at least nine times under the chairmanship of Cleveland Thomas (Trinidad and Tobago). It considered Resolutions 79 (Minneapolis, 1998) and 121 (Marrakesh, 2002), as well as all proposals submitted by Member States on the issue of the ITR. Resolution 121 had instructed the Council to establish a working group to study the ITR and to prepare a report for transmission to the Antalya Plenipotentiary Conference. Studies conducted by that working group did not result in a consensus on how to proceed.

A number of delegations had underlined in their proposals that WCIT was the sole forum for revising the International Telecommunication Regulations. Mexico, for instance, had stressed that “the proposal to empower the Plenipotentiary Conference to revise or abrogate the ITR had various negative implications”. It had stressed that this would set a precedent whereby any other of the ITU administrative regulations could be “revised or abrogated by a forum lacking the necessary competence and different to the one foreseen in the ITU Constitution”.

The new resolution underlines that for ITU to maintain its pre-eminent role in global telecommunications/ICT, it must continue to demonstrate its capacity to respond adequately to the rapidly changing telecommunication environment. There is, therefore, a need to build broad consensus on what could be covered in the ITU treaty framework, within its standardization and development activities. The resolution highlights the importance of ensuring that the ITR are reviewed, “and if deemed appropriate, revised and updated in a timely manner in order to facilitate cooperation and coordination among Member States and to reflect accurately the relations between Member States, Sector Members, administrations and recognized operating agencies”.

It is noted in the resolution that the world telecommunication policy forum (WTPF) has historically provided an appropriate venue for discussing global and cross-sectoral issues of high concern to the ITU membership. It is anticipated that the fourth WTPF would provide an opportunity to study such issues. And that further studies could take place in the Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) in collaboration with other Sectors.

In particular, the resolution calls on ITU-T to undertake a review of the existing ITR, engaging with the other Sectors and serving as the focal point. A WTPF should be convened to consider emerging telecommunication policy and regulatory issues, with respect to international telecommunication networks and services. WTPF would prepare reports and opinions (where appropriate) for consideration by Member States, Sector Members, relevant ITU meetings and by the Council.

The Council is instructed to consider such reports and the issues they raise and take action, where needed. As for the three ITU Sectors, they are instructed within their areas of competence following WTPF to carry out any further necessary studies aimed at preparing for WCIT. They are also to participate in relevant regional meetings, within existing budgetary resources, in order to identify topics to be addressed by WCIT. The Secretary-General is instructed to undertake the necessary preparatory arrangements for WCIT, based on these studies. And the ITU membership is invited to contribute to the review of the ITR and to the preparatory process of WCIT.

Committee 5 also agreed to suppress Resolution 121 as it had served its purpose.

Tightening the belt

Canada outlined measures to reduce costs with a view to balancing income and expenditure and suggested the use of unmandated activities (UMAC) to fill the gap. Indonesia reminded delegates that resources must be allocated for ITU to fulfil its mission, and this will not happen by reducing human resources. Canada agreed that the current levels of staffing should be maintained. The Russian Federation supported Canada, saying that the greatest treasure of ITU is its highly professional staff and the highest priority must be given to retaining it.

The ITU Secretariat explained that with every conference the Union is accorded new priorities, which must be implemented within existing resources. Drastic cuts have been made and a favourable exchange rate helped tide over some of the finances, but there is no control over such a phenomenon; the tide could well turn the other way. In the meantime the Union had used every means possible to keep costs under control.
The US proposed a set of cost-reduction activities, including lengthening the interval between Plenipotentiary Conferences to six years and postponing WTDC to 2011 and WRC to 2012.

Gabon recalled the role of ITU as a specialized agency of the United Nations. If ITU must carry out its tasks, it must be provided with adequate resources. WTDC objectives and the Doha Plan should be implemented in concrete ways, not merely confined to paper. In order to cut costs, ITU could do with fewer D2 posts, in keeping with the UN system, and reduce the number of meetings, Gabon said.

Class of contribution

The Russian proposal on modifying the scale of contributory units was designed to increase contributions from Member States. While the Russian Federation suggested adding classes 6 and 7 to fill the gap between 5 and 8, Spain suggested adding one class between 5 and 8 and another between 10 and 13. It was agreed to add new classes 6 and 11 respectively.

Japan raised the question on when this modification would come into effect. According to Spain, the amendment could be applied at this Plenipotentiary and Indonesia concurred. Argentina and the Russian Federation said this would create the impetus for increasing contributions.

Meeting the staff

Committee 6 reached agreement on Resolution 48 on “Human Resources Management and Development”, albeit with one paragraph in square brackets pending finalization of the Strategic Plan. The reference to reduction in staffing levels would be deleted and replaced with supporting training activities in accordance with staffing levels.

The Staff Council expressed its appreciation for the Committee’s generosity in giving it the opportunity to state its views and to raise the issue of the Welfare Fund and long running short-term contracts. The Staff representative requested that the Welfare Fund, which is a product of staff contributions and revenues from the Cafeteria, should be managed by the Staff Council and not by Management. The funds would be used for the benefit of staff and the accounts would be maintained transparently and audited.

The secretariat explained that Article 24 of the Financial Rules accords responsibility to the Secretary-General who, in turn, delegates responsibility within the secretariat. If such a decision is taken, the Financial Rules would have to be amended. The Chief of Personnel brought up other reasons why it may not the desirable to change the rules. The funds are not from staff contributions, but from the revenues of the cafeteria. There would no longer be any control. “Where would this stop”, he said. “And where would the welfare of the staff begin?”

Burkina Faso said that the staff should have a voice and a harmonious climate should be established. The US said this should be a matter for the Council to decide, but the Staff Council cannot be given more privileges than the General Secretariat.

The Chairman concluded that there was a legal basis to foster dialogue with staff according to Resolution 51, which should be applied in the spirit of openness.

Scheduling conferences

Norway presented the European proposal to change the timing of future plenipotentiary conferences to be convened “normally” between April and June in the relevant year, while the ordinary session of the Council would be held in the final quarter of the preceding year. The term “normally” was added owing to the difficulty faced in changing the schedule of the next Plenipotentiary Conference in 2010. Mexico agreed in principle with the European proposal, but suggested that the schedule for 2010 be retained for the October-November period. Argentina recommended that the text should be explicit in taking into account Mexico’s concerns regarding the 2010 schedule.

Committee 6 decided that the next Plenipotentiary Conference would be held in October-November 2010 in Mexico.

The US introduced Proposal 16/58 calling for radical changes in conference schedules, including a six-year interval between plenipotentiary conferences, moving WTDC to 2011 and WRC to 2012, and recommending that no more than one world conference should be held in one year. It called for the setting up of a Council Working Group to study which provisions of the Constitution would have to be changed to increase the interval between plenipotentiary conferences.

The secretariat clarified that holding several world conferences within short intervals was not cost-effective “as it compels us to incur additional expenditure.” It is necessary to coordinate the scheduling of conferences between the Bureaux.

Member States dismissed the suggestion of increasing the interval between plenipotentiary conferences. Indonesia pointed out that prolonging the interval would mean that elected officials could stay on for 12 years. Spain said that increasing the interval would make the Union languish and added that the shorter, three-week format actually slows down the process. Norway, on the other hand, preferred shorter plenipotentiary conferences but held at closer intervals.

Regarding the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC), Spain asserted that the rapidly evolving world of ICT demanded quick resolution of spectrum management issues. WRC should be held every three years, the delegate said. France agreed, saying that the gap between WRC should not be more than three years and that the plenipotentiary must be held every four years for decisions to be implemented in a timely manner. The interesting point in the US proposal was to shift WTDC after the plenipotentiary as it would facilitate the implementation of the Strategic Plan.

Canada proposed reducing the interval between WRCs to two years, but the focus should be on making the agenda more manageable and avoiding “rolling items” considered by other conferences.

As the proposal to hold the plenipotentiary every four years and WRC every three years received broad support, it was agreed to forward it to the Council for reference and to consider the possibility of making some adjustments.
 

TELECOM

The working group on World and regional Telecommunication/ICT exhibitions and forums led by the US presented draft Resolution 11 as DT/31. It stipulates that the World TELECOM event should be held every four years, but not in the same year as regional events and other ITU conferences and assemblies. While the resolution called for financial viability as one of the criteria for hosting the event, El Salvador disagreed, saying that this would limit the possibilities for many countries.

Indonesia asserted that TELECOM events should generate a surplus. The Russian Federation, France and Gabon agreed that financial viability was critical. They also stressed the need for transparency in the selection process.

The Executive Manager of TELECOM explained that a set of 20 criteria is set out for the selection process, and that letters of invitation are sent to all countries in the bidding process. Once the sites are shortlisted an inspection is conducted.

As there was no support for the proposal, El Salvador withdrew it.

It was agreed that the World TELECOM events should be rotated, but the Secretariat explained that there were only five or six venues that were suitable for holding such an event. Bulgaria stressed that the host country should guarantee preferential or promotional hotel rates so that participants are not exploited.
 

Strengthening ITU's regional presence

An evaluation of the regional presence of ITU, keeping in mind the scarce resources at its disposal, was considered the first step in maximizing the benefits. Priority would be given to assist countries in implementing projects defined in the Doha Action Plan.

Germany favoured the evaluation process to be undertaken by the UN oversight body, the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). This could be more effective as well as efficient as ITU already contributes funds for this service. Canada and Egypt agreed, but suggested leaving some latitude to the Secretary-General. The US expressed support, saying the JIU was an impartial, skilled and capable unit and it exists to assist UN agencies.

Technical cooperation and assistance

Special needs

The European proposal to merge all resolutions dealing with countries with special needs “in the interest of good governance and housekeeping” met with some resistance. While Europe suggested that the list could be amended as needed between plenipotentiary conferences, others said that countries with special needs cannot be clubbed together. Gabon asserted that countries suffering from conflict could not be placed in the same category as those affected by the aftermath of natural disasters. Indonesia said that each country had specific problems that required specific solutions.

Tanzania presented the case of Somalia, which has been at war for 15 years. Infrastructure, including the telecommunication network, has been destroyed and it requested financial assistance to rebuild the network along with technical assistance to re-establish a regulatory system.

Similarly, the Democratic Republic of Congo submitted that its basic telecommunication infrastructure had been severely damaged from years of domestic conflict and called upon financial assistance to rebuild its network.

Serbia called for assistance in building its public broadcasting system as had been decided at WTDC in Doha.

Project execution

Canada presented Document 17/10 concerning strengthening of the project execution function in ITU referring to 118 of Article 21 of the Constitution on the key responsibilities of ITU-D to discharge the Union’s dual responsibility as a UN specialized agency and an executing agency for implementing projects. While this latter function has declined over recent years, a review needs to be undertaken of technical cooperation within and outside the UN system as well as of the lessons learnt from ITU’s work along with the administrative procedures associated with project execution. Following this analysis, staff will have to be recruited internally and, if necessary, externally to ensure delivery.

An assessment has also to be made of the resources required for implementation. The benefits from this process would help enhance the credibility of the Union.

The Russian Federation agreed with Canada and added that training was important to strengthen capacity within ITU. Distance learning could help. Argentina supported the US saying that a provision should be included to clearly express how support costs can be recovered.

Germany argued that while full cost recovery is not possible and that project execution work has to be supported by Member States, as is common practice within the UN system, its research had indicated that cost recovery at ITU was too low.

Bulgaria attributed the reason for low cost recovery to ITU’s focus on small-scale projects where returns were lower than from large projects.

Indonesia suggested that ITU should also solicit funds in trust from private companies.

New trends for projects

The BDT Deputy Director explained that the execution of projects is an extremely important component of work in the development sector. In the past few years there has been a profound evolution in the types of projects handled by ITU, including those initiated by the private sector. While technical assistance projects continue to be executed, the trend has shifted towards development projects, and even commercial projects.

Resolutions on extending the provisions relating to developing countries to economies in transition (Document 101) and support for NEPAD and connectivity in the Americas (Document 91), which were discussed in Committee 5, were brought to Committee 6 to examine their financial implications. The secretariat clarified that for the former, the impact was negligible. For the latter, the minimum expenditure for support of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) would be CHF 500 000 extracted from the regular budget with a need to find additional resources; and CHF 150 000 for the Americas where future activities would be supported by regional initiatives.

Countries with economies in transition

Now provisions of all ITU documents relating to developing countries shall be extended to apply to countries with economies in transition as well. The Plenary on Friday (17 November) approved Resolution Com 5/1 that will make this possible. It is entitled “Extending the provisions in ITU documents relating to developing countries to apply to countries with economies in transition.
Canada, leading negotiations on the proposal from countries in the Regional Commonwealth in the Field of Communications (RCC), had reported during Committee 5 on Tuesday (14 November) that the proposal to make mention in ITU documents of countries with economies in transition had become a wider European issue, and that more time was needed for further talks.

Later in the week, Committee 5 considered and approved what is now Resolution Com 5/1 that includes reference to the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society, as well as resolutions from the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). Essentially, these UNGA resolutions stress the importance of continued international assistance to countries with economies in transition to ensure that they are fully integrated into the world economy. They also recognize the need to enhance the capacity of those countries so that they can utilize effectively the benefits of globalization, including those in the field of information and communication technologies, and to respond more adequately to its challenges. Furthermore, they stress the need to focus international assistance to countries with economies in transition on those facing particular difficulties in socio economic development and meeting internationally agreed development goals, including those contained in the United Nations Millennium Declaration (see Highlights Nos. 4 and 6).

Resolution Com 5/1 also makes reference to the agreement reached at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (Florianopolis, 2004) and the World Telecommunication Development Conference (Doha, 2006). At both these events, it was agreed that provisions of documents of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) and the Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D) relating to developing countries would be extended to apply also to countries with economies in transition.
 

The idea of "model host-country agreements” sails through Plenary

ITU conferences and assemblies have high importance because of the powers conferred on them and their impact on countries and the industry at large. The decision to accept an invitation to hold an ITU conference or assembly away from Geneva is normally taken by the Council.

Preparations for conferences and assemblies require extensive work. When there is an inviting government, the ITU General Secretariat defines the conditions and requirements of the conference or assembly in a host-country agreement and annexes to that agreement.

On Friday (17 November), the plenary approved Resolution COM5/2 entitled “Availability of model host-country agreements in advance for ITU conferences and assemblies held away from Geneva”. Resolution COM5/2 is the result of negotiations in Committee 5. It notes that there are advantages in holding certain conferences and meetings in countries other than that of the seat of the Union, but it also underlines that there are challenges. Some of these challenges were explained in an earlier draft resolution tabled by Turkey (see Highlights No.6), based on its experience as host country for PP-06, and for earlier ITU conferences, which it hosted in Istanbul in 2000 and in 2002. Turkey’s proposal had underlined that making available the texts of the host-country agreement and its associated annexes well in advance of a conference or an assembly would not only “increase transparency, but would also serve as a measure for ITU to accept an invitation and for a government to take a decision on an invitation to hold a conference or an assembly”.

Committee 5 had held extensive discussions on this issue on Tuesday (14 November), with most delegations generally expressing support for Turkey’s proposal. But there were areas of concern too that needed to be addressed. For example, the United States had raised several questions. What exactly was meant by the term “template” used in the Turkish proposal? How could such a template be applied to all countries, given that they are sovereign States with different national legislation? Viet Nam had offered to help prepare a “template”, saying that as work on this had not started, such a document could be developed that would not violate domestic, national laws. The Syrian Arab Republic said they supported the proposal, but that its provisions should not be applied immediately. Mexico, which has already announced its invitation to host the next Plenipotentiary Conference in 2010, was also in favour, saying that it would be delighted to work with the US to address that delegation’s concerns. Committee 5 then set up an informal group that met and came up with a revised draft resolution, coordinated by the delegations of Turkey, the United States and Viet Nam. The term “template” was changed to “model” in the revised draft that Committee 5 discussed and unanimously approved later in the week.

Resolution COM5/2 acknowledges that as things stand, “it takes a while to finalize the complete text of the host-country agreement and its annexes”. It goes on to say that this situation in turn leaves the inviting government very little time to not only complete the domestic ratification procedures, but also fulfil all the commitments and requirements laid down in those texts. It also underlines that the conditions attached to those texts are of significance in the decision-making process of a government considering whether to invite and host an ITU conference or assembly.

Under the terms of Resolution COM 5/2, ITU will prepare “model host-country agreements and their annexes, including the requirements in terms of basic infrastructure, at least two years before the proposed date of any conference or assembly”. This, the resolution says, would facilitate the work of Member States wishing to offer to host a conference or an assembly under well-defined conditions. The resolution also recognizes national sovereignty and the different national legislations of Member States. It says that model host-country agreements and their annexes will be submitted to the Council for consideration and adoption of any measures that may be needed.

Towards multilingualism

Morocco presented the Arab proposal on updating terms and definitions to facilitate the use of six languages in ITU and to create a unit for the maintenance and updating of a centralized database.

The secretariat explained that a study was ongoing within the General Secretariat to unify the databases, the findings of which will be presented to the Council in 2007. While there are no costs attached to the study, the financial implications of its consequences are not predictable, although the aim would be to achieve cost-effectiveness.

The US remarked that while it is important to create a glossary and a database, the problems refer to costs and the shortfall in budget and staff. Germany added that it is not appropriate to mix different issues in one resolution: the definition and the database.

A small working group will redraft the resolution.

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.