As the most important developer of the global standards on which the world’s telecommunications networks are based, the ITU has, for most of its 130-year history, has been the voice of its government members, which today include almost all the nations of the world.

However, with the rapid changes which have transformed the telecommunications environment over the last decade, the ITU now finds itself working in a new landscape, a world where the role of its traditional membership has shift dramatically. At the same time, a multiplicity of new players from industries such as information technology and broadcasting are increasingly finding that their activities fall within the realm of telecommunications, and are looking to the ITU to provide global guidance on the standards which will help build the broadband networks on which tomorrow’s communications systems will be based.

One of the hottest issues at the ITU’s Plenipotentiary Conference – the elections notwithstanding – will be that surrounding membership, specifically, the so-called ‘rights and obligations’ of the ITU’s two classes of member. So what is the difference between the ITU’s Member States and what it calls its Sector Members, and what are the issues at stake?

When the ITU – then known as the International Telegraph Union – was founded in 1865, it was to put in place a fairly straightforward series of agreements between a small number of nations about how they could handle interconnection between their telegraph networks in a mutually convenient way. That small group – comprising just 20 states to start with – grew rapidly to include most of the nations in the world, and now boasts 188 Member States, from the world’s economic giants like Japan and the United States, to the world’s most populous countries such as China and India, all the way down to some of the smallest countries in the world like the Marshall Islands, far out in the Pacific Ocean.

Equipment manufacturers, scientific organizations and carriers, participated in the work of the Union from its very earliest days, serving as a testbed for new technologies and technical discoveries.

For this historical reason the ITU, almost alone among international organizations, still boasts a mix of public and private sector members. As a treaty-based organization, the ITU needed to be able to rely on State-based members to implement international agreements such as the Radio Regulations. But the Union has also relied heavily on the contribution of its private sector members, who make a vital contribution to Union’s standards-making process and in undertaking technical studies – crucial work which remains one of the ITU prime responsibilities.

Today, the balance of power has changed. With privatization, liberalization and deregulation, the driving forces in today’s telecommunications are no longer governments, or their agencies, but new, independent operators. In many cases, the government’s role in telecommunications provision has been transformed from that of a provider of national telecommunication services to that of a regulator of telecoms provision by third parties.

Many of these new telecommunication providers are already ITU Sector Members. But, as convergence continues to blur the distinction between telecoms, broadcasting and computing, a large number of new organizations – companies who once would have considered their work far removed from the work of the ITU – are finding benefits in ITU membership. By the middle of 1998 there were more than 500 ITU Sector Members, from the telecommunications operators themselves to equipment manufacturers, industry associations, scientific and research institutions and new players from the IT industry, such as Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel and Microsoft.

ITU Sector Members participate in the ITU’s day-to-day work at a grass-roots level. Since the earliest days, they have contributed a great deal to the organization through their work in the Study Groups, expert ad-hoc bodies which churn out the all-important ITU standards on which global telecommunications systems are based. In today’s deregulated and increasingly liberalized marketplace, private sector organizations are playing an even more crucial role in helping to define and develop the new kinds of networks which will take the world into the Information Age.

However, although the role of the Sector Member has changed considerably over the last twenty years or so, their status within the organization has not. While it is estimated that Sector Members provide more than 90 per cent of the intellectual contribution that goes into creating ITU Recommendations, they do not have the power to approve them. They also have no say in the development of the ITU work programme and its priorities, nor in the Union’s financial decision-making framework.

ITU Member States have not been deaf to the demands of Sector Members for increased rights, nor blind to the fact that the new telecommunications environment will be more and more reliant on the efforts of these private companies. Indeed, the need for extended rights for Sector Members was recognized by the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference in 1994, but major decisions, such as what additional powers should be granted, how to accomplish such changes and how to relate enhanced rights to increased obligations were not taken.

What the Kyoto Conference did recognize was that there was a strategic need not only to maintain but also to strengthen the relationship between the public and private sectors of the industry and the ITU’s Member States. It therefore agreed to adjust the ITU's structures and working methods, and adopted a number of specific principles:

• firstly, that the level of contribution for Sector Members should remain a free choice
• secondly that Sector Members would be entitled to have access to all information related to the work of the Sector, including Study Groups, Assemblies and Conferences
• thirdly, that Sector Members should be allowed to submit contributions and take part in the proposal of items to be discussed, participate in negotiations, nominate chairmen and rapporteurs etc., within the Sector’s work – but excluding any decisions taken in relation to the structure and functioning of the Union
• fourthly, that operators, scientific and industrial organizations, financial and development institutions as well as organizations of an international character representing groups of Sectoral members would be granted observer status at ITU Plenipotentiary Conferences
• and finally, that the ITU should develop stronger ties with regional organizations given that the synergy derived from such cooperation can contribute to improving regional telecommunication development.

Whilst these principles were a move towards giving Sector Members more influence, many consider that such statements merely represent a first step on what will be a very long road. Some even argue that the supposed freedom from the obligation to fund the Union is itself a weapon that can be used against Sector Members. Many of them, in fact, would prefer a fixed obligation to the Union, and the power that comes with it, rather than the freedom – and powerlessness – they have today.

In addition to the principles outlined above, the Kyoto Conference adopted two key Resolutions: Resolution 15 on the "Rights and Obligations of Members and members", and Resolution 39 on "Strengthening the Financial base of the Union". Under Resolution 15, a Review Committee was established comprising a cross-section of both Member States and Sector Members to implement a three-phase plan.

Phase one, which covered the short-term, called for mechanisms to be developed by the Directors of the ITU’s three bureaux which would take account of the views of members in reaching consensus, particularly in the formulation of ITU standards. Administrations were invited during this phase to conduct broad coordination at the national level among all Sector Members from their country.

In phase two, the 1996 Council was expected to adopt the recommendations arising from the outcome of the work of the Review Committee. These recommendations covered areas such as the outlays for voluntary contributions, particularly in the Development Sector; the offering of additional opportunities of involvement to members; and the review of the financial management of each Sector for improved independence and responsibility. It was hoped that these measures would be seen as providing Sector Members with better value for money.

Phase three called for the recommendations of the Review Committee to be put in front of the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary Conference.

Most ITU Sector Members are now growing impatient to see the changes foreshadowed in Resolution 15 and the establishment of ITU-2000 finally implemented at the Minneapolis meeting. Indeed, some relatively minor recommendations resulting from the work of ITU-2000 have already been implemented by the ITU Secretariat. But since most will require alteration of the ITU’s Constitution and Convention to come into effect, they have had to be referred for consideration by the 1998 Plenipotentiary.

Unfortunately for the many private organizations which have waited patiently for the ITU to implement new practices and accord them greater rights, it is unlikely that the resolutions proposed by the ITU-2000 will go far enough to satisfy their demands and expectations.

It is important to remember, however, that ITU-2000 recommendations notwithstanding there is still room for manoeuvre. The Minneapolis Plenipotentiary Conference does not have to agree to accept the ITU-2000 series of recommendations. It can also choose to accept them with modifications, provided there is enough support from delegations to do so. This could turn around the situation for the ITU’s private sector membership.

Certainly, many people, both inside and outside the ITU, believe that if the ITU is unwilling to change and adapt to the times – and that means the radical changes to the ITU’s Constitution and Convention which can only be effected by the ITU’s Member States at a Plenipotentiary Conference – then its influence could gradually decline and fade as other, more forward-looking organizations and flexible structures grow in importance and eventually eclipse it altogether.

Already, the organization must face stiff competition from a wide range of industry and regional bodies such as the ATM Forum, ETSI, ANSI and even the FCC in Washington. Furthermore, the long-term effects of the WTO agreements on telecommunications liberalization, which came into force at the beginning of the year, are yet to be felt.

With an increasing number of new fora created by the market itself, many users and experts now question the relevance of a slow-moving, body such as the ITU, where all power is vested in government representatives rather than in those organizations who are investing in and developing new technologies.

However, before writing off the ITU one should bear in mind that it is the only truly global impartial organization whose membership spans all aspects of the industry, from PTOs to manufacturers to satellite system operators to service providers and even user groups. Even in its current form the ITU can largely take single-handed credit for the successful development of the world’s current telecommunications networks over the last 100 years.

What’s more, whilst industry fora certainly have their place, the increasing trend towards global networks and global operators makes global standards which are agreed within the context of an impartial, truly international organization more essential than ever.

Most ITU Members - State and Sector – at least agree that a declining role for the ITU is not desirable. Despite the burgeoning growth of industry- and technology-specific forums and lobby groups, the ITU still represents the only truly global, impartial telecommunications organization. It has no vested interests, represents the needs of the poor as well as the rich countries, and has succeeded where all other industry groups have failed – that is, in pulling together competing organizations and governments in a spirit of cooperation. And, in the ITU’s case, this cooperative effort is much more than mere words; it has led to almost faultless interconnection of the global telecommunications network and a shared approach to radio frequency spectrum use for radiocommunications.

The ITU has worked extremely well as a global telecoms development and standardization for more than 130 years. Most acknowledge that there is a great deal to be said for an organization which is truly global and which is able to balance the needs of both developed and developing countries. What’s more, most organizations and governments say they are comfortable working with the international impartial framework of the Union. For these reasons, the vast majority of players in the telecommunications industry believe it would be far better to preserve the many good aspects of the Union and to exploit the advantages of a global treaty-making organization than for the telecommunications industry to fragment. This is particularly true where limited resources – such as the radio frequency spectrum – are concerned.

However, whether an organization that has failed in the past to move quickly in response to the rapidly changing telecommunications environment can do so now remains to be seen. It is commonly felt that the cumbersome and procedures of the ITU are making it impossible for the ITU to keep up, and that if radical changes are not made at the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary Conference then the battle to keep the ITU a vital and relevant organization may very well be lost.

But while that opinion is widespread among the private sector, it does not extend to many of the ITU’s Member States, who feel that the ITU is not and should not become a commercial organization. Some Member States also fear, with some justification, that the combined clout of big business and big government may render their voices, already hard enough to hear, entirely inaudible.