The United States’ radiocommunication
interests are global. Communications
are the backbone of our economic and national security and radiocommunications
are a critical component of the United
States’ overall communications
interests. Radio signals traverse borders, oceans and space.
The mobility of radio systems leads to services, technologies,
and operations that span the global community and economy. The
successful development and implementation of radiocommunications
depend on international agreements reached at World Radiocommunication
Conferences (WRCs). These conferences meet every three to four years
under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) to update the international radio regulations on the use of
the radio spectrum. The ITU
is a specialized agency of the United Nations, and has 189 member
states. The outcome of WRCs provides the international
regulatory framework for the use of radiocommunication systems vital
to U.S. economic growth, U.S. national security, safety of
life and property, and scientific investigations. The United States
must continue its success at these international conferences in
negotiating spectrum allocations and regulations forward-looking
and flexible enough to accommodate technologies and operations that
the United States
will need in the future.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its
report, Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management (GAO-02-096), recommended
that the Department of State, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA)
“jointly review the adequacy of the preparation process following
the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) and develop recommendations
for improvements.” The GAO noted challenges that the United States
faces in its WRC preparation. The challenges include development of positions
and proposals, appointment of the U.S. WRC Ambassador, formation
of the U.S. WRC Delegation (Delegation), maintenance of a cadre
of U.S. Government employees to serve as U.S.
negotiators, designation of staff and financial resources, and an
increasing dependence on regional representation.
The GAO suggested that the United
States must assess these challenges at the
start of the U.S.
preparation process for developing U.S. positions to ensure success during
the process.
NTIA
reviewed the U.S.
processes for preparation and participation in WRCs considering
input from the private sector and the federal agencies, reports of past
WRC Ambassadors, and NTIA staff experience. As a result, NTIA
concluded that the United
States has been very successful
in achieving its objectives at these conferences.
For example, the United
States successfully promoted, the
growth of international satellite services and implementation of
multiple and flexible technologies for public mobile communications. The United States has not only met these
commercial needs, it has also fulfilled requirements for safety
operations, national security and scientific exploration. At the same time, NTIA
noted that increasing international competition in radio services
and technologies and potentially conflicting requirements for the
radio spectrum make finding solutions more challenging.
The United States has improved its preparatory
process for WRCs, overcoming many of the concerns raised in the
past regarding its activities leading up to WRCs. In preparing for the most recent WRC, WRC-03,
NTIA and the FCC developed
most positions and proposals far earlier than at previous conferences. Both agencies established new processes for
resolving conflicts. The
United States
also raised its level of participation in preparatory meetings of
other regions. The United States built strong relationships
and was able to bring together a united front within the Inter-American
Telecommunications Commission (CITEL PCCII). As a result of increased U.S. participation in CITEL, the United States
was able to positively influence the outcome of Inter-American proposals
and positions. This not only
served to meet U.S.
goals, but also aided in coalescing regional objectives. This is significant because the international
negotiating mechanisms continue to evolve toward a greater emphasis
on regional positions. The
U.S. Ambassador to WRC-03, Ambassador Janice Obuchowski, noted that
the United States’ success at WRC-2003
“would not have been possible without painstaking and comprehensive
preparatory efforts prior to the conference.”
[5]
Ambassador Obuchowski added that “we were the
beneficiaries of effective preparatory processes spearheaded by
the Federal Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, and this (State) Department, through
the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Office of International
Communications and Information Policy.”
[6]
The United States
also accomplished its objectives at WRC-2000 in Istanbul, Turkey. However, Ambassador Gail Schoettler asserts
that “even though the United
States was extremely successful
in achieving its political and economic objectives at the World
Radiocommunication Conference 2000 (WRC-2000), there is room for
improvement.”
[7]
Ambassador Schoettler states that, “as global
telecommunications and the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU) evolve, we must make sure our methods are still relevant to
accomplish our spectrum goals.”
[8]
NTIA
concludes that the United
States cannot rest on its past
successes. The evolving international political, technological
and economic situation demands constant vigilance and a willingness
to regularly evaluate and improve the U.S. processes. Based on its review, NTIA
recommends further refinements in the U.S. preparatory process through:
1.
Increased agency senior level engagement in the preparations;
2.
Improved cooperation and coordination of federal and non-federal
preparations; and
3.
Early international consultation and communication and preparation
and formation of the Delegation.
NTIA
also concludes that timely implementation of WRC results is critical
to achieving the full benefit of these conferences and recommends
that the FCC and NTIA
review and act upon the WRC outcomes immediately after the close
of each conference. To meet this objective, shortly after WRC-03,
the FCC Chairman and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications
and Information agreed to timely implementation of WRC decisions. The FCC has since completed action on WRC-03
outcomes.
Introduction
Radiocommunication services,
operations and technologies have become global in nature, for this
reason, World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs) have increased
in importance to the U.S. economic growth, and the critical functions
of federal agencies, particularly those dealing with safety, national
security and homeland defense, and scientific exploration.
The U.S. economy depends heavily on radiocommunication
technology development and services, both for the communities that
produce and deploy them, and also for the American public and businesses
that use them. Many of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) activities for maintaining safe
transportation networks as well as many functions of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operate globally and
rely on spectrum. The Department of Defense (DOD) must be able
to perform its mission at any time, in any place. Without spectrum these agencies and many others
could not do their jobs. WRCs
provide the lifeblood of allocated spectrum.
More and more, they also provide opportunities for harmonization
of spectrum for applications, helping to decrease manufacturing
costs and ultimately the cost of services.
The National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA)
is the executive branch agency principally responsible for domestic
telecommunications and information policy issues.
NTIA is the President's principal adviser on telecommunications
and information policy issues and, in this role, frequently works
with other executive branch agencies to develop and present the
Administration's position on these issues. NTIA
also manages the federal use of the spectrum, performs cutting-edge
telecommunications research and engineering, and resolves technical
telecommunications issues for the federal government and the private sector. NTIA
works to spur innovation, encourage competition, help create jobs
and provide consumers with more choices and better quality telecommunications
products and services at lower prices.
NTIA processes the federal agencies' requests for
frequency assignments; coordinates current and future spectrum requirements
among the federal agencies; and along with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and Department of State (State), develops and promotes
the United States'
positions on spectrum management issues within international treaty
bodies and other fora. Because
of its unique role as policy adviser and spectrum manager, NTIA
must bring together the spectrum interests of the federal agencies
and advance policies that promote the benefits of technological
developments in the United States
for all users of telecommunications services.
As the manager of federal spectrum, NTIA
promotes policies to:
- accommodate
new technologies that need spectrum;
- improve
spectrum efficiency;
- increase
private sector access to scarce spectrum resources; and
- plan
for future federal spectrum needs, including those critical national
defense, public safety and law enforcement needs that require
long-range spectrum planning.
To
evaluate the processes used by the United
States to prepare for and participate in WRCs,
NTIA looked to the
experience of key U.S.
players at past WRCs. NTIA requested the views of the federal agencies through
the Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS) of the Interdepartment Radio
Advisory Committee (IRAC), reviewed reports of past delegations
and Ambassadors, conducted internal discussions among NTIA’s
WRC participants, and sought the public’s comments to identify areas
for improvement to the United
States’ WRC preparation process.
NTIA
sought the public’s comment on a number of areas. In response to the NTIA
Notice, NTIA received
comments from Winstar Communications, LLC; the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA); the United States International
Telecommunication Union Association (USITUA); and the New York Satellite
Industries, LLC and Final Analysis Communications Services, Inc.
(NYS and FACS). Each respondent’s comments are summarized under
the various sections in which comments were requested. NYS and FACS commented that they have had success
working with NTIA and
the FCC on a number of matters and they suggested “the current WRC
preparation and interagency process needs only a ‘tune-up’ not a
major overhaul.” NASA stated that the United States is consistently
very successful at WRCs. According to USITUA, “the United States is generally
quite effective at conferences, but often at greater cost than perhaps
necessary given some of the hurdles that we create for ourselves,
such as; dealing with funding, time of ambassador appointment, etc.” NYS and FACS commented that the United States
Government deftly managed a large number of agenda items at WRC-03,
to unprecedented success, often in the face of broad multinational
resistance. NYS and FACS also emphasized that the United
States Government team should be applauded for its preparation and
achievements at the recent WRC-03.
Background
World
Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs) set the world stage for future
technological development by allocating radio frequency spectrum
to radio services, establishing spectrum use coordination methods,
setting international rules for radio equipment operation, and identifying
spectrum for specific uses such as Third Generation (3G) wireless
systems. The International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an intergovernmental organization
within the United Nations that specializes in the field of telecommunications.
The ITU brings together governments and private industry
to coordinate the establishment and operation of global telecommunication
networks and services. Every three to four years, the ITU convenes
WRCs to review and revise the ITU Radio Regulations. These Radio Regulations constitute a treaty
on radiocommunications covering the use of the radio-frequency spectrum
by member nations.
WRCs
are an important endeavor for the United
States because we are able to bring
new and innovative technologies to the world community.
NTIA, with the
support of the federal agencies, works closely with State and the
FCC in preparing for and participating in these conferences.
The U.S.
preparatory process also facilitates the highly valued involvement
of manufacturers, service providers, and non-federal spectrum users. This results in delegations with wide interests
and diverse goals.
The U.S. preparatory process for WRCs
follows two related paths: technical
preparation and proposal/position preparation.
The ITU conducts technical preparations through the ITU Radiocommunication
Sector (ITU-R) study group and Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM)
processes. The United States participates internationally
in these processes through the efforts of federal and non-federal
representatives overseen by the Department of State. The United States Delegation prepares technical
studies for WRCs under State’s International Telecommunication Advisory
Committee (ITAC). The National Committee (NC) of the ITAC-R (covering
the ITU’s Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R)) assists the United
States Government in technical preparations for international meetings. Under this advisory committee, the public and
executive branch agencies participate actively in government decision-making
activities. With respect
to technical preparations for WRCs, the Department of State uses
the ITAC-R to develop inputs to the ITU-R study groups and the CPM
to form the technical, operational and regulatory basis for WRC
decisions, but does not employ the ITAC to develop preliminary views
or proposals directly related to WRCs.
The
federal and non-federal WRC positions and proposal preparation processes
operate independently. The
federal preparation process includes NTIA,
which represents the views of the Administration. NTIA
is the President's principal adviser on telecommunications and information
policy and manages the federal government's use of radio spectrum. The RCS meets monthly to discuss, develop and
approve federal agency views, positions and proposals on WRC issues
to recommend to NTIA. NTIA
reviews those recommendations and formulates federal inputs to the
process. In some cases after
this review, NTIA modifies
the positions and proposals developed within the IRAC in keeping
with Administration policies. NTIA then provides its positions and proposals to
the FCC for consideration and further negotiation. The FCC performs WRC preparations for non-federal
interests. The FCC, an independent
agency established by the Communications Act of 1934, manages the
use of radio spectrum by state and local governments and the private
sector. The FCC represents the views of its constituents
and receives their input on WRC views, positions, and proposals.
The FCC develops non-federal inputs under its WRC Advisory
Committee (WAC).
Analysis and Recommendations
This
section of the report focuses on the following areas within the
United States preparatory process: federal agency senior management
involvement, leadership and WRC goals, federal government preparation
process, non-government preparation process, FCC/NTIA
coordination process, study group/national committee process related
to WRC agenda items, forming the WRC Delegation, staffing and budgeting WRC activities, outreach and consultations
with other countries, training, WRC implementation process and other
WRC issues. NTIA sought information regarding improvements in
these categories in the Request for Comment.
The
United States’ goal is to ensure that the WRC preparations
reflect and further United States’ telecommunications
policy objectives. Traditionally,
WRC preparations have relied heavily on a cadre of career government
staff and industry participants.
Where conflicts have arisen, these individuals have sometimes
been unable to break through them, at times resulting in late formulation
of U.S. positions and proposals as noted
by the GAO and industry. Prior
to WRC-03, State coordinated and led a meeting of U.S. Government
Principals to ensure higher level, interagency oversight of WRC
preparations. The Principals Group addressed possible nominees
to head the U.S. WRC delegation, resources needed for the delegation
and the WRC, and resolution of contentious issues.
NTIA requested comments on the improvement in the
involvement of senior agency management and early agreements on
WRC positions. NTIA
requested comments regarding what goals the United States should have for WRCs
and how to establish these goals.
USITUA encouraged NTIA to engage at senior levels in important regional
meetings addressing WRC proposals and stated that it would be extremely
beneficial for NTIA’s
Assistant Secretary to ensure that his/her senior level counterparts
in the IRAC agencies have a commensurate understanding of the WRC
and the associated issues. With respect to ways to improve communications
and coordination between NTIA
and the FCC, Winstar commented that the reconciliation process sometimes
takes an extraordinarily long period of time and that contentious
issues should be raised to higher-level management when necessary,
to force all parties to justify and support their positions. The NYS and FACS commented that there would
have been insufficient support for a low earth orbiting satellite
feeder link allocation in the 1.4 GHz band at WRC-2003 without
United States Government advocacy, including senior officials.
NASA commented that an
Office of Spectrum Policy within the Executive Office of the President
would go a long way toward obtaining more balance in the consideration
of government interest vis-à-vis non-government issues, while improving
the FCC’s response time on pending matters by setting priorities.
The
USITUA suggested that the United States’
goal for WRCs should be to protect and advance U.S. interests. USITUA added that these interests are established
through the existing proposal and agenda setting process. NASA commented that WRC goals should be based
upon the requirements of both the federal and non-federal entities. These goals should be established and disseminated
by an Office of Spectrum Policy and should be in the best interest
of the country as a whole, considering both federal and non-federal
requirements. From a private sector perspective, Winstar argued
that the United States’
goals for WRCs should reflect industry interests, including development
and acceptance of new technology and services to promote export
of United States
goods and services. Also according to Winstar, the United States’
goals should reflect minimizing regulatory barriers for deployment
and expansion of services, including in border areas.
The Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information and the FCC Chairman have made
coordination and dialog regarding their efforts in radiocommunications
policy and regulation an essential goal.
Their partnership with the Department of State, through the
leadership of the U.S. Coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary
for International Telecommunications Policies, ensures a well-focused
and integrated foreign policy with respect to telecommunications.
Establishing and maintaining
high-level WRC oversight in the federal government is fundamental
to the success of United
States preparation for WRCs.
The involvement of senior-level leadership in the WRC preparatory
process would help to further United States’
telecommunications policy objectives.
Senior-level involvement will lessen delays in resolving
difficult issues and identification of policy perspectives on agenda
items. The oversight of WRC related activities should
be at the Assistant Secretary level, or equivalent including the
U.S. Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy, in the
three lead agencies, State, NTIA
and the FCC, thereby assuring availability of resources and a higher
level of visibility within the chain of command. This
can be accomplished by utilizing the U.S. Government “Principals
Group” that State coordinated and led for WRC-2003.
The principals, Assistant Secretary level or equivalent including
the U.S. Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy,
from the three agencies addressed such issues as possible nominees
to recommend to the President to head the U.S. WRC Delegations,
resources that agencies could commit to the WRC and the preparation
process, and resolution of contentious issues. NTIA
recommends that State continue leadership of this group and that
it expand to meet throughout the WRC cycle.
The principals group should continue to be active in WRC
preparations and should approve WRC objectives and goals, conduct
policy-level discussions, make decisions where required on controversial
issues, and establish overarching direction for U.S.
preparatory activities.
Within the federal agencies,
senior-level familiarity with issues could also facilitate development
of executive branch support for WRC preparations.
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information will invite his/her senior level counterparts in the
State Department, FCC and other relevant federal agencies to participate
in high-level briefings, conducted by executive branch and FCC WRC
staff, to facilitate understanding of key WRC issues. Such briefings could occur once preliminary
views have been developed in the Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS),
and annually thereafter leading up to the conference.
Furthermore, while senior-level
officials may not directly participate in the negotiations of a
conference, their presence, even if for short periods, reflects
recognition of the importance of WRCs and a respect from the other
administrations that attend. Therefore senior-level officials from the agencies
should continue to attend the conference for at least a portion
of the time.
The federal and non-federal WRC positions
and proposal preparation processes are independent, but inter-related. The federal preparation process involves NTIA, which represents the views of the Administration.
NTIA receives
the views of the federal agencies through the RCS of the IRAC, which
meets monthly to discuss and approve the federal agencies’ views,
positions and proposals on WRC issues.
The RCS is closed to participation by the private sector;
however, the FCC voices non-federal views as a liaison representative
in the RCS. Also, private sector representatives may approach
NTIA on an ad hoc basis
in order to express their views.
NTIA requested public comment on federal preparations
for WRCs to include seeking views and inputs from non-federal entities
and educating the commercial sector on federal agencies’ radiocommunication
requirements and related policies and decisions that effect U.S.
conference proposals.
The commenters generally agreed that there ought to be private
sector input into the federal government’s preparation process. For instance, NASA commented that time should
be made available for coordination between joint sessions of the
NTIA’s RCS and the FCC’s WRC Advisory Committee (WAC). Such
joint sessions should be for the purpose of information exchange
to reach mutual understanding of federal and non-federal views. Furthermore, NASA suggested that greater use
can be made of IRAC members to meet with non-federal entities to
exchange information and provide greater transparency of views. USITUA advocated that the WAC is an appropriate forum for government and the
private sector to share information regarding their respective views. Furthermore, USITUA recommended that an approach
or format similar to the U.S. Delegation “Training Day” prior to
WRC-2003, be considered to brief interested parties on issues under
consideration. USITUA also encouraged NTIA to “ensure that there be RCS liaisons to the
WAC Industry Working Groups (IWGs) to provide updates
on the Government’s preparations.” Winstar agreed that coordinating with the WAC and the IWGs is a good idea, and further recommended
that the government routinely issue formal requests for written
comments prior to major meetings.
Commenters generally agreed
that NTIA should improve coordination and the sharing of
views between the government and the commercial sector. One commenter supported NTIA facilitating meetings between federal agency
representatives and non-federal entities, to exchange information
in order to provide greater transparency of views.
NTIA will work to educate the commercial sector on
relevant spectrum policies and decisions related to the federal
agencies’ needs that affect U.S. WRC proposals.
Moreover, NTIA
will establish briefings on key issues to interested parties as
early in the preparatory process as possible.
This could serve several purposes such as an “Exchange of
Views” on hot topics and contentious issues, so that both federal
and non-federal users can express their views on issues.
Such actions will build trust among the participants, so
that they can resolve many difficult issues and produce good outcomes
for the United States.
As a WRC process improvement,
the RCS developed high-level work plans for each WRC-07 agenda item
that identify anticipated regulatory or procedural difficulties
and identify action agencies in the work program.
NTIA will forward these work plans to the FCC in order
to provide greater transparency of federal views to the public.
One of the commenters
recommended that the federal government’s process could be improved
if NTIA would publish the federal agencies’ views for
public comment. NTIA
will publish its views on key WRC issues on a case-by-case basis
for public comment before being adopted by NTIA.
WRC preparations by the
private sector and other non-federal entities take place under the
jurisdiction of the FCC as it is responsible for managing the radio
spectrum used by state and local governments, non-federal public
safety agencies, and the private sector pursuant to the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended. The FCC receives WRC views and proposal inputs
from its constituency through the WAC. The results of the WAC
are used to help facilitate discussions between NTIA
and the FCC as final WRC views and proposals are developed. Representatives from the federal agencies have
participated in the WAC
process as observers since the inception of this process. However agencies’ participation in the process
is inconsistent at times, because newer agency representatives do
not know the extent to which they can brief the IWGs of the WAC
on the status of RCS views and proposals.
NTIA
requested comments regarding federal agencies’ participation in
the WAC and if there were other ways in which the federal
agencies could better participate in the process to prepare for
a WRC.
The
USITUA suggested that the federal agencies can best participate
in the WAC by encouraging NTIA
to maintain its observer role and to seek a greater role. USITUA also recommended that NTIA designate RCS members to provide updates to the
WAC on IRAC decisions
regarding WRC proposals under their consideration. According to Winstar, it would be useful
to the U.S. Government representatives in the WAC
to provide input on government interests and concerns regarding
various issues. Winstar also
comments that the government should not attempt to influence WAC
decisions because the WAC
is a forum for the private sector, but rather ensure that government
interests are understood and all parties’ viewpoints are considered. NASA believes that
closer liaison between NTIA
and the FCC (through the RCS and WAC)
is appropriate so that the views of the respective groups can be
better understood.
Federal
agency participation in the FCC’s WAC
process provides significant value to both private sector and the
executive branch, even though the agencies participate only as observers. As proposed by one of the commenters, federal
agency participation can be improved and expanded through management
controls and clear guidance from NTIA. As recommended by the commenters, the RCS has
formalized designation of government liaisons to attend each IWG
meeting. NTIA
will provide guidance to the RCS on federal agency participation
in the FCC WAC process. This
approach will allow the RCS liaisons to brief the IWG on the status
of the preliminary views and proposal developments in the RCS and
IRAC processes.
4. FCC/NTIA Coordination
Process
The
Department of State, in consultation with NTIA
and the FCC, determines national positions for WRCs. The IRAC provides advice to NTIA based on deliberations within the RCS, while
the WAC, working primarily
in IWGs, advises the FCC. To
avoid isolation between the two advisory processes, which operate
concurrently, an FCC liaison attends IRAC and RCS meetings, while
NTIA and other federal
agency representatives attend WAC
and IWG meetings as observers.
In
most cases, the FCC provides industry positions and proposals to
NTIA as soon as the WAC
approves them, without denoting explicit FCC acceptance. NTIA,
on the other hand, provides its approved positions and proposals
to the FCC. This assures
the FCC that the published views are those of NTIA
and not merely the recommendations of the IRAC.
Once NTIA and
the FCC have received each other’s positions and proposals on an
issue, the reconciliation begins.
In this reconciliation process, NTIA and FCC strive to reach a common agreement on
U.S.
positions and proposals.
In its request for comment,
NTIA sought the public’s views on whether the federal
and non-federal advisory processes should remain independent. NTIA
also requested comments on improvements to the communications and
coordination processes between the FCC and the executive branch
agencies that work with NTIA on spectrum issues. NTIA
also asked for comments regarding steps that could be taken to resolve
difficult issues and whether timelines were needed to identify difficult
issues early in the WRC preparatory process.
Early convergence and
agreement on views and positions are vital to the success of U.S. objectives. Participants in the WRC preparatory process
should prepare initial technical studies or U.S. views early enough in the process
to ensure sufficient time for stakeholder coordination, technical
review and further analysis. Therefore,
NTIA asked whether it is necessary to energize agenda
items and their associated studies if no activity has occurred by
a certain point in time in the preparation process.
NASA, Winstar and USITUA agreed that federal and non-federal
advisory processes should remain independent.
USITUA supported its position, by stating “many aspects of
deliberations about spectrum requirements and positions are related
to potentially sensitive system and equipment procurements that
should not be part of the transparency requirements of a FACA process
which enables any entity, foreign or domestic, government or non-government,
to participate in the WAC
process.” USITUA also noted that the uniqueness of certain
government issues are more appropriately addressed in a separate
process, and that the private sector entities, should have the opportunity
to develop their views without the government having a decisional
role in the process. Winstar commented that there is concern that
the federal government’s interests would dominate in the formulation
of proposals if there was not independence between the NTIA
and FCC coordination processes. NASA asserted that “joint sessions of the RCS/WAC
should be convened to facilitate an understanding of the respective
federal and non-federal views.”
There
are mixed views on the submission of WAC
documents directly to NTIA,
the IRAC, and the RCS without FCC bureau approval.
Winstar commented that the present process works efficiently
and that inserting FCC review prior to NTIA
consideration would unnecessarily cause delay and concerns in the
overall process. USITUA recommended that the current process
should be retained. NASA suggested that “the FCC should reconcile
and coordinate the views of its bureaus before sending proposals
to the NTIA and IRAC.”
Winstar suggested that
a process be developed to forecast how many contentious issues may
arise and to plan ahead for deploying personnel and resources. USITUA believes that the establishment of regular
meetings between NTIA
and the FCC, as designated under the recent Memorandum of Agreement,
is critical and recommends they be used to also discuss progress
on the U.S. preliminary views and proposals
for the WRCs as they develop.
NTIA
sought public comment on how to resolve
difficult issues and whether timelines should be developed early
in the process to identify them.
Winstar argued that contentious issues can usually be identified
early and that mutual timelines should be agreed upon to resolve
them. NASA commented that
an Office of Spectrum Policy should be established in the executive
branch to resolve contentious issues. USITUA supported establishment of early timelines
for resolving non-consensus issues and believes the Department of
State has an important role in that process to bridge any impasse
that may occur, as it has in the past. USITUA also recommended an interim step that
allows interested private sector parties to meet with federal agency
personnel to discuss the difficult issues and to try to reach a
mutually satisfactory compromise.
With respect to the final questions regarding the necessity
to energize agenda items by a certain point in the preparation process,
commenters do not believe that any action is necessary if no studies
have occurred. USITUA asserted that if there is not sufficient
government or commercial interest in undertaking the relevant studies
necessary to advance or impact an agenda item, then no action should
be taken on the agenda item. Winstar stated that this process is driven by
self-interest and that there is no need for additional action on
the part of the United States Government. NASA also commented that if no activities have
been undertaken in the study group on a particular issue, it is
because there was no interest by the participant administrations.
The
commenters supported keeping the federal and non-federal WRC preparatory
processes independent, and NTIA
agrees with this point. Many
aspects of deliberations in the RCS involve sensitive national security
issues and classified information on frequency use in
certain bands. Also,
federal agency representatives deliberate advantages and disadvantages
when forming WRC views and proposals that relate to the compatibility
of government systems that should not be transparent to the public.
NTIA believes
that it is in the best interest of the nation that the federal agencies
formulate their WRC views in closed sessions.
One commenter advocated
that the FCC should review and coordinate WAC
documents prior to NTIA
consideration. Another commenter, however, suggested that the
FCC’s prior approval would unnecessarily cause delays in the process. NTIA
will continue to accept WAC
documents into the RCS as the present process works efficiently. However, NTIA
prefers the FCC give an indication of its support on WAC-approved
documents prior to NTIA
approval. For WRC-03, the
FCC began providing NTIA
with FCC Public Notices which state the FCC’s support of WAC
proposals. NTIA
recommends that the FCC continue this practice.
Commenters suggested that
communications and coordination between the executive branch and
FCC processes can be improved. Therefore,
NTIA will initiate periodic meetings between the WRC
coordinators at the NTIA
and FCC, including experts for specific issues.
The agenda for these meetings should include policy-level
determination on how to pursue agenda items, approaches for ITU-R
studies to support WRC objectives, preliminary view and proposal
reconciliation, and identification of contentious issues needing
senior management attention.
To ensure success of U.S.
objectives for WRC agenda items, early convergence and agreement
on views and positions are vital.
In the past, this has not been the case on all issues and
NTIA understands that
there will always be some agenda items where no domestic interest
exists, however, it is important to follow the progress on all agenda
items both domestically and regionally.
Despite comments received to the contrary on this issue,
NTIA believes, from past experience, if work is not
progressing on an agenda item(s), it is important to energize that
agenda item(s) and its associated studies by a certain point in
the preparation process. Where
no interest exists and no studies have been undertaken, it is still
important to develop preliminary views early in the process.
NTIA will follow the progress of all agenda items
regionally to ascertain the associated impact on U.S. interests and prepare positions
and strategies based on other regional or country proposals.
In order to achieve success
on all agenda items, NTIA
will work with the FCC to determine which, if any, agenda items
require the FCC to initiate its consultation processes early.
The U.S. preparatory process for WRCs
follows two related paths B
technical preparation and proposal/position preparation. Administrations and sector members participate
in technical preparations in the ITU-R
study group process. Federal
and non-federal representatives participate in this process. State’s ITAC-R serves as the mechanism by which
the United States
prepares technical studies for WRCs. The ITAC-R National Committee (NC) assists the
U.S. Government in technical preparations for international meetings
and negotiations. Under this
advisory committee, the public and the executive branch are afforded
the opportunity to participate actively in government decision-making
activities. With respect to technical preparations for WRCs,
State uses the ITAC-R to develop technical study inputs to the ITU-R
study groups and the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) to form
the technical, operational and regulatory basis for WRC decisions. State, however, does not use the ITAC-R to develop
preliminary views or proposals directly related to WRCs.
Under
current ITAC-R processes, positions most frequently develop via
input documents providing technical analysis.
The discussion and negotiation of these documents propel
the development of positions within ITU-R study group activities.
If no one submits inputs, the positions do not develop. Some cases may exist where certain approaches
or certain outcomes that the study groups consider may be contrary
to U.S.
policies. In these cases,
established policies could guide U.S. Study Group activity.
The
first CPM (CPM-1), which usually occurs immediately after a WRC,
establishes which ITU-R study groups, working parties, or task groups
will work on specific agenda items.
However, most agenda items concern a number of groups.
Therefore, the CPM establishes a lead group and interested
groups. Coordination of activity within the ITU-R study
groups and working parties usually progresses through liaison statements
or through appointed liaison representatives.
Due to the timing of meetings, the consideration of liaison
statements can take significant time.
Also, as work accelerates, formal liaison may not allow responses
in a timely manner.
NTIA
requested comments regarding the National Committee (NC) setting
objectives and policy for WRC studies.
NTIA wanted to know whether closer coordination among
various study groups is required and how this can be accomplished. A question was also asked on whether the U.S.
Study Group process should be aligned with U.S. WRC goals and objectives. NTIA
also sought public input on whether or not federal and non-federal
views on agenda items and supporting documents pursuing U.S. positions should be developed,
approved and disseminated.
With
respect to whether the NC should set objectives and policies regarding
WRC studies, a majority of the commenters agreed that the NC should
not have this authority. NASA
argued that the NC “should not be in the business of setting objectives,”
but should address technical content and validity of WRC studies. According to NASA, an Office of Spectrum Policy,
located in the executive branch, and the IRAC, representing federal
agencies, should establish objectives and policy. USITUA advocated that the NC should not have
this authority, but encouraged NTIA
to facilitate coordination efforts between the RCS and WAC
on WRC preparatory activities. Winstar, however, commented that there ought
to be discussion in the NC because “it is not clear what objectives
and policies might be considered.”
NTIA
received mixed views from the commenters on whether closer coordination
among study groups is required or not.
Winstar commented that closer coordination is desirable because
the current process is not efficient or very useful in some cases. USITUA recommended that there be scheduling
improvements between the study groups and the WAC
meetings to maximize participation in both, and minimize impact
on resources given that many participants (government and industry)
come from outside of the Washington,
D.C. area. NASA commented that closer coordination is not
needed and that there ought to be isolation between the study groups
to “properly conduct their scientific and engineering studies.” NASA added that only when the necessary expert
internal studies have been completed, should studies be shared with
all concerned study groups.
NASA and USITUA commented
that the U.S.
study group process should not be guided to align with United States
WRC goals and objectives. NASA
asserted that if the study groups’ work is not maintained as “expert
work,” then the ITU credibility and technical pre-eminence will
crumble. NASA also commented that “within the United States, the objectives and policy for a
given WRC, established by an Office of Spectrum Policy in the executive
branch, should be promulgated through the NC to each of the United States’ study group chairmen
as guidance in overseeing the technical studies.” USITUA suggested that the roles and agendas
of the study groups are much broader than for the WRC and therefore
does not support aligning the study groups’ process with the WRC
goals and objectives. Winstar noted that reaching agreement on WRC
goals and objectives is not always easy because of competing interests
and information provided to the various groups to advance their
goals. In this regard, Winstar recommended a government
process be developed that gives the private sector warning prior
to a government decision on a contested issue.
NTIA
received mixed comments on whether a federal or non-federal position
on agenda items, and supporting information, pursuing an overall
U.S. WRC position should be developed, approved, and distributed.
NASA recommended that such positions should be developed
only subsequent to joint meetings between WAC
and the RCS, which would be helpful in solidifying a U.S. position for regional meetings
(e.g. CITEL). USITUA argued that such federal/non-federal
positions and supporting studies to pursue U.S. positions should be not developed
because “self-interest is perhaps the appropriate motivator for
action on any agenda item.” Winstar supported this suggestion, but
noted that further discussion needs to occur between government
and the private sector on developing positions.
Commenters
agreed that the NC should not set objectives and policies regarding
WRC studies because agreement on WRC goals and objectives is difficult
due to competing interests. Commenters
also suggested that the U.S.
study group process should not be directed to align with U.S. WRC
goals and objectives because the ITU-R study groups have much broader
responsibilities than just WRC preparations.
However, NTIA recognizes that with respect to some agenda items,
U.S.
policy may already exist. Therefore,
on an exceptional basis, where such policies exist, State, the FCC
and NTIA in conjunction with their constituents will continue
to provide guidance to study group activities.
NTIA
believes that broad participation in the ITU-R working parties is
essential to the preparations for any WRC since these groups develop
the technical bases for conference decisions.
NTIA believes that government and private sector interests
working together on ITU‑R technical studies result in higher
quality technical studies. NTIA recommends that
U.S. ITU-R working parties develop work programs
for WRC agenda item(s). These
work programs could include objectives for U.S.
studies for the various agenda items, specific timeframes and work
assignments. Issues of policy
should continue to be resolved within the existing ITAC-R National
Committee structure chaired by State, and co‑chaired by NTIA
and the FCC. This process
has proven effective. Issues
that cannot be resolved within the existing ITAC-R National Committee
should be identified as quickly as possible and referred to the
Principals’ Group for their review.
6.
Outreach and Consultations with Other Countries
Building open lines of
communication and goodwill with other countries is crucial in an
organization like the ITU, which employs the United Nations’ voting
system of "one country, one vote."
Because the United States has only one vote on WRC issues that
affect U.S. commercial
and government interests, the United
States must actively engage other administrations
to seek their support for U.S.
positions. To develop the
relationships necessary to be successful at a WRC, the United States must prepare appropriately
before a WRC begins.
In
preparation for WRC-2000 and WRC-03, the Ambassadors to those conferences
led small delegations comprised of the U.S. vice-chairmen, technical staff
and other members of the U.S. WRC team on a very aggressive bilateral
and multilateral consultation effort that covered several countries
and regional organization meetings.
These various discussions gave the United
States a chance not only to present the U.S. positions on key issues, but
also to listen closely to other countries’ WRC views. These consultations provided the Delegation
with vital information that the United
States used to explore and understand
the reasons behind other administrations' proposals. This in turn helped the United States to develop possible
compromises that could be negotiated at the conference. In some cases, the United States negotiated joint proposals
with other countries. These
bilateral and multilateral meetings were invaluable because the
United States
was able to go to the WRC better understanding the strengths and
weaknesses of other administrations’ proposals.
The United States also knew which administrations agreed
with and would actively support the United States’ goals. The Delegation also understood which administrations
supported or opposed United States’ proposals.
NTIA
believes that it is important for the United States to coordinate with other
countries in preparation for WRCs.
For many years, the United
States has implemented country
outreach programs at WRCs. This
outreach effort consists of delegation assignment of individual
U.S. delegates to serve as contacts
or liaisons to other country delegations at the conference. The United States continues to build upon
and improve the outreach programs from conference to conference. The outreach program enables dissemination of
U.S.
information to other countries, collection of information from other
countries, and promotion of good relations with other countries.
NTIA
requested comments on the benefits and costs of regional preparation
for WRCs. NTIA
also requested comments on the effectiveness of and need for consultations
with other administrations and the importance of working with other
countries outside of the ITU study groups and the CPM.
NTIA also requested
comments on the country contact/outreach program and its effectiveness. NTIA
was interested to learn whether the WRC outreach efforts should
be integrated with other international efforts of State, the FCC,
and NTIA. The final question NTIA
asked concerned the effectiveness and timeliness of the delegation
consultations prior to WRC-03.
With respect to consultations
with other countries, USITUA argued that this is critical and should
be conducted in two parts. The
first consultations, according to USITUA, occurring very early in
the process, should be a listening session where the United
States reaches out to different
regions to understand their priority areas. USITUA also suggested that once the proposals
are developed, the second phase of consultations should take place
prior to the CPM if possible. NASA added that consultations depend on specific
issues and that the United
States should target key countries
for early bilaterals on contentious issues.
NASA also argued that
regional preparation is becoming an absolute requirement for ensuring
success at the WRC. Regional views are increasingly sought over
individual administration views. According to NASA, the cost of such regional
preparation is a loss of autonomy and possible compromise of U.S. positions even before the start
of the conference.
The
benefits of full participation in regional preparations for WRCs
(including preparations for the Americas,
Europe, Asia/Pacific, the Arab
States and Africa)
far outweigh the cost of such participation asserted USITUA. USITUA further
stated that the WRC is becoming increasingly regionalized with regions
coalescing on proposals and positions prior to the WRC. The experience of WRC-03 is quite instructive,
according to USITUA, on how timely engagement and leadership in
the regional processes can yield successful outcomes on U.S. proposals. The USITUA concluded that the WRC-03 experience
should form the baseline for future U.S. WRC preparation activities. As far as regional views are given high visibility
at conferences, and given that U.S. positions are traditionally influential
in Region 2, Winstar advocated that such preparations are very important. Winstar stated that it is useful to participate
in other regional processes.
NTIA
requested comments on the importance of working with other countries
outside of the ITU study group and the CPM processes.
NASA and USITUA commented that it is important to work with
other countries outside of this process; specifically NASA stated
that this “can be accomplished through CITEL (the Inter-American
Telecommunications Commission) and other regional bodies, as well
as through targeted bi-laterals.” USITUA stated that regional group meetings offer
ideal opportunities for the United
States to meet with both leaders as well as
working level staff, and to demonstrate the United
States’ interest in others views. USITUA noted that working with other countries
is an important initial step in building common proposals within
and across regions and it allows delegation leaders and their staffs
to meet one another. It also
provides the United States
an opportunity to learn the other countries’ views. The United States’ consistent engagement
and leadership in the CITEL process, as well as participation with
other regional processes, was a central factor it its many successes
at WRC-2003. USITUA specifically encouraged NTIA to engage at senior levels in important regional
meetings addressing WRC issues. USITUA also recommended that the private sector
should be considered for inclusion in U.S. delegations to regional preparation
meetings outside of the CITEL meetings.
NTIA
also asked a question concerning the country outreach program and
whether it should be maintained between WRCs.
NASA and USITUA both answered that this program should not
continue between WRCs. USITUA
argued that the program is impractical for the private sector.
According to NASA, “the value of the outreach program within
the WRC itself is debatable and costs the United States at least as much goodwill
as it generates.” NASA stated that we need to think more about
how to implement some other activity that ensures good relations
without excessive complications. As a minimum, some measure of the effectiveness
of past outreach efforts should be assessed before undertaking such
an endeavor. According to NASA, targeted outreach is likely
to be far more productive than the general outreach that has been
conducted during WRC-2000 and WRC-03. If the program continues, NASA recommended that
the following actions will improve the effectiveness of the process:
a)
Assign delegates country responsibilities in a more thoughtful manner
based on working relationships with one or more individuals on a
country delegation, and their knowledge of the country;
b)
Several experienced delegates need to exchange ideas and develop
a more effective outreach program that could be implemented prior
to the CPM and utilized until the conference;
c)
Once someone with country ties has been identified, retain that
person as the U.S. Delegation’s contact person for more than just
one conference if possible;
d)
Develop a delegation message of the day or a list of issues for
which the Delegation should solicit views; and
e)
Develop a list of questions concerning the views of other countries
prior to the CPM.
Commenters had varying
views on the integration of WRC outreach activities with other international
activities of State, the FCC and NTIA. NASA emphatically advocated that WRC outreach
activities should not be integrated with other international activities. On the other hand, USITUA suggested that the
WRC outreach should be integrated with other international activities
and be a standing topic for discussion at every bilateral or regional
meeting with State, the FCC or NTIA. The commenters agreed that the Delegation’s
consultations prior to WRC-03 were very effective, but could be
improved. NASA stated that the consultations were not
started in a timely manner and should be started at the CPM and
be continued from there. NASA also noted that the consultations were
effective due to the diligence of the Ambassador and the team, but
that the consultations were rushed. USITUA agreed that the consultations “were very
effective, building good relationships, in part assisted by the
fact that the late-appointed Ambassador to WRC-03 was a known and
respected figure in the international telecommunications community,
and the ITU.” USITUA suggested, however, that the Ambassador
should be appointed earlier.
Conclusions
and Recommendations
NTIA
agrees with the commenters on the importance of consulting with
other countries and involving federal agency senior leadership in
these consultations. In this regard, NTIA
believes that State, the FCC and NTIA,
should continue to work closely to conduct
consultations with other countries throughout the WRC cycle,
with more detailed consultations being possible once the United
States has developed preliminary
views and conference goals/objectives.
NTIA further recommends that the three agencies continue
to conduct consultations upon completion of the U.S. proposals to obtain support for
them as early as possible prior to the WRC.
State plays a key role
in ensuring the success of consultations with other administrations
and international outreach since the Secretary of State exercises
primary authority for the conduct of foreign policy with respect
to such telecommunications functions, including the determination
of U.S. positions
and the conduct of U.S.
participation in negotiations with foreign government and international
bodies. NTIA
is committed to working with State as it coordinates with other
agencies on these international issues.
NTIA
recommends that State continue to work closely with the FCC and
NTIA to identify
and meet with key countries, including CITEL countries, on contentious
issues early in the process. NTIA recommends conducting detailed WRC consultations
with other administrations throughout the preparatory process.
While face-to-face meetings with representatives of other
administrations in their countries convey a level of respect for
those administrations, video conferencing should also be used where
possible to expand the opportunities for dialog. We note that video conference facilities are
often available at U.S.
embassies, and that these facilities were successfully employed
to conduct a bilateral meeting with Brazil
prior to WRC-03. More meetings
of this type would be useful and would conserve U.S. resources, as well as resources
of other countries.
Regional preparation has
become an absolute requirement for ensuring success at the WRC,
because conferences increasingly highlight regional proposals and
views over individual administrations’ views.
The United States should use the experience of WRC-03
to form the baseline for future U.S. WRC preparation activities--timely
engagement and leadership in the regional processes yielded successful
outcomes on U.S.
proposals. NTIA
will continue to participate actively in regional preparations for
WRCs.
NTIA
believes that it is also important to work with other countries
outside of the ITU study groups and the CPM.
NTIA has in the past and will continue to discuss
WRC issues with foreign administrations visiting NTIA. Commenters suggested that the country outreach
program should not be maintained between WRCs. However, database information on country contacts
should be maintained. NTIA agrees with the commenters that the country outreach
program that has been used at conferences should not be actively
pursued between conferences. The
outreach program at conferences relies heavily on private sector
delegates. Private sector
representatives could not continue to officially represent the United States
outside conferences. However,
federal employees should continue to promote informal contacts that
cultivate relationships that were built during the conference, especially
those with individuals who do not participate in ITU-R study groups. NTIA
recommends that all U.S.
participants continue to collect and share information on foreign
delegates among other U.S.
players. This approach has
proven effective and draws upon the experiences of all. NTIA
will create and maintain a formal database for its WRC staff and
will invite the federal agencies to contribute to the database via
the RCS. Further, NTIA
believes improvements can be made in the international outreach
program to increase its effectiveness and proposes State consider
appointing several experienced delegates to exchange ideas and develop
a more effective outreach program that could be put in place prior
to the CPM and carried through to the conference.
State could also consider holding monthly meetings or otherwise
informing participants on country outreach immediately after CPM-2
and designate official coordinators from NTIA and the FCC by country and region. All outreach efforts would continue to be coordinated
by State to ensure consistency of message and to make all outreach
transparent.
Preparation for a WRC begins several
years in advance. The U.S.
WRC Ambassador (Ambassador or Head of Delegation) cannot be appointed
until about five months before the WRC as the Ambassador can serve
only about six months including the WRC.
The remainder of the U.S. Delegation is not formed until
six months or in most cases, less than six months prior to a WRC
commencing, although the identity of the delegation is known in
large measure as early as CPM-2, which generally occurs six months
prior to the WRC. In preparation
for WRC-03, State initiated a "core delegation group"
to lead the preparatory activities until a U.S. Head of Delegation
was appointed. The core delegation group, a subset of
the U.S. Delegation, met regularly to discuss issues related to
the WRC and is comprised of the U.S. WRC Head of Delegation, the
vice-chairs, agency principals and representatives from State, the
FCC, NTIA, NASA and
DOD. The group assisted in
the development and implementation of U.S.
goals and objectives, developing U.S.
policy positions, resolving conflicts with U.S. proposals, and managing issues
associated with forming the Delegation.
The core delegation also developed a conference structure
for the WRC and list of proposed international committee chairs
to lead the work of the conference.
This group identified and attempted to reconcile differences
in positions and proposals on conference issues and identified areas
of divergence with other Regions and countries in the hopes of resolving
those differences in negotiations prior to the WRC. The group created a list of U.S. spokespersons and committee chairs
so that these groups could begin meeting and carrying out the necessary
preparatory work before the delegation was formed.
NTIA
asked a similar question regarding the formation of the Accredited
Delegation and the commenters stated that the Accredited Delegation
is not formed early enough to develop and approve United
States positions, strategy, and
fallback positions. USITUA
suggested that the Accredited Delegation be in place no later than
approximately four months prior to the conference, to consider the
issues that need to be addressed, such as confidentiality. NASA stated that the
.
NTIA
also asked a question regarding the United States’ negotiating strength
using appointed political representatives working with career spectrum
managers and ITU experts from other countries.
NASA commented that the “United States’ negotiating strength
is enhanced by the appointed political representative.
The political clout available to the appointed political
representative can prove invaluable in resolving difficult issues.” Winstar asserted that “the United States negotiating strength
is most certainly hindered by the use of an appointed political
appointee that inherits an office that is not provided with the
appropriate staff and resources.” USITUA suggested that the United States’ negotiating
strength may be more hindered than improved if there is not adequate
time to educate the Ambassador sufficiently for the person to develop
a satisfactory comfort level on the controversial issues. However, if the Ambassador has pre-existing
knowledge of an issue or has enough time to gain a firm understanding
of the issue, then the presence of a political ambassador is useful.
NTIA
wanted to know whether it is important to bring the Ambassador on
board in some capacity prior to the CPM-2, considering that at the
CPM, administrations agree on the technical report for the WRC.
NTIA asked when the Ambassador’s appointment should
be made effective. The commenters
agreed that it is important to bring the Head of Delegation on board
in some capacity prior to the CPM-2.
NASA advocated that identifying the individual ahead of time
as Head of Delegation is essential so that this person can gain
a necessary understanding of all of the issues that affect United
States interests. Winstar recommended that the Ambassador be identified
and appointed at least three months prior to the CPM-2 so the person
can become knowledgeable on the issues. Winstar also suggested that the Ambassador be
identified, if not appointed, at least one year prior to a WRC. USITUA asserted that the Ambassador should be
appointed one year prior to the WRC and that a statutory exemption
may be appropriate for this position.
As an alternative, USITUA argued that the Ambassador could
be an appointee or consultant in the Department of State so that
there is expertise and travel budget available to support the activities
of the Ambassador-to-be.
The U.S.
approach to leadership of WRC delegations contrasts with most other
countries that have the same senior administrators available to
negotiate on behalf of their country from one WRC to the next.
The consistency in leadership in foreign delegations allows
for these individuals to develop personal relationships with their
counterparts, which helps in resolving differences or disputes during
WRCs. Providing national leadership during the several
years of critical preparatory work prior to a WRC is extremely important.
The United States’ current system does not allow for a continuing
leader from one WRC to the next, although it does provide for an
ongoing cadre of senior career professional staff drawn from the
Department of State, NTIA,
the FCC and other agencies to support of the WRC Ambassador. One commenter recommended that the Department
of State appoint an interim or a permanent head of delegation for
WRCs to undertake oversight of the WRC preparatory process. Yet,
given the scope of telecommunications issues involved and the limited
organizational steps that can be taken prior to the appointment
of the Head of Delegation, NTIA does not believe that this approach would be
very useful in practice. Furthermore,
the U.S.
preparatory process and ultimately the Delegation are built on career
government professionals as mentioned above together with private
sector participants. These
individuals provide tremendous continuity and personal relationships. The present approach to selecting the Head of
Delegation does carry some risk that the individual will not be
fully prepared to meet the challenges of representing the United States at a WRC. NTIA
believes that an appointed Head of Delegation with ambassadorial
rank is the right approach for the United
States.
A well-developed and functioning interagency process and
an ambassador that “hits-the-ground-running” have proven to be a
successful substitute for a permanent head of delegation.
For instance, the last two U.S. Heads of the Delegation worked
informally for several months to familiarize themselves with conference
issues and other administrations’ delegations prior to being formally
appointed. This greatly increased their knowledge and effectiveness,
familiarizing them with the issues and their foreign counterparts
in advance of their appointment.
Some commenters state
that the core delegation should be formed early and indicate a desire
for private sector involvement in the core delegation.
One recommendation was to appoint a private industry representative
as a liaison to the core delegation, such as the chair and vice-chair
of the FCC WAC. This idea presents legal challenges as the core
delegation consists entirely of government employees. NTIA
agrees with NASA’s comments and encourages State to continue leading
the core delegation group, noting that State has begun high-level
consultations four months prior to the CPM-2. The work of the core delegation should be done
in a more transparent way so that likely WRC participants have input
into its functioning. The
core delegation should include spokespersons and other federal
agencies in order to provide an opportunity for team building
and development of substantive expertise on assigned agenda items.
NTIA notes that the WRC-03 Delegation operated
only three months prior to the start of the WRC. This provided insufficient time for many important
delegation activities to take place, such as preparing positions
and strategies. The Nominated
Delegation can be created at any time and it could be used more
effectively to bring all relevant points of view to government preparations
earlier than waiting for the Nominated Delegation to be accredited.
In light of the many activities that must be completed prior
to the WRC by the Delegation, along with earlier appointment of
the Head of Delegation, NTIA suggests that either the Accredited Delegation
be finalized four to six months prior to the WRC or, as an alternative,
the Nominated Delegation be granted authority by State to at least
start developing U.S. strategies and fallback positions until the
Delegation is accredited. Another suggestion from a commenter is to form
the Nominated Delegation one month prior to the CPM-2. NTIA
agrees with this approach. State however, has indicated that Federal Advisory
Committee Act provisions apply to all meetings involving private
sector participants prior to the formation of an Accredited Delegation. Documents which must by their nature be private
within the delegation – for example, documents spelling out possible
fallback positions and strategies – cannot be dealt with in the
open. The existing practice of creating factual documents,
to which fallbacks and strategies are later added by the Accredited
Delegation once foreign views are more fully known, State indicates,
has proven effective.
Approving the Accredited
Delegation involves a number of steps that typically cannot occur
until close to the start of the WRC.
In most cases, the accredited delegates have been included
in the list of nominated delegates. Therefore, as recommended previously, the Nominated
Delegation can begin to accomplish some of the functions of the
Accredited Delegation, but not the development of inherently private
matters such as fallbacks and strategies.
NASA stated that the Delegation accreditation process is
not transparent or timely. One comment suggested that the Accredited Delegation
be in place no later than approximately four months prior the conference. NTIA
agrees with this approach and further suggests four to six months
prior to the conference. U.S.
WRC delegates have expressed uncertainty about the size, composition
and accreditation process of the WRC delegations.
State provided guidelines for selecting individuals to serve
on WRC delegations and the overall size of the delegation to many
potential U.S. delegates prior to WRC-03.
NTIA recommends
to State that it continue to provide potential WRC delegates a guidance
document, including an explanation of the accreditation process,
approximately one year before the conference.
The core delegation, under
the leadership of State, should continue to identify spokespersons
early, so they can develop the technical expertise, public speaking
experience, and knowledge-base to effectively manage the issues
that the United States is promoting. WRC vice-chairs should therefore, make delegation
assignments and officially identify spokespersons three months prior
to the CPM-2.
Early designation of the
Ambassador and the Delegation will provide stability and strong
leadership in representing the interests of the United
States.
The current six-month tenure of the Ambassador does not allow
enough time for the Ambassadors to develop sound working relationships
with other country representatives or complete the necessary delegation
activities for which they are responsible.
Further, the effectiveness of the United States Delegation
can be enhanced by ensuring that the appointees have a telecommunications
background, preferably with ITU experience.
These individuals typically already have many contacts and
informal relationships that enable them to excel in negotiations
with other countries. If
possible, a position should be found for the Ambassador even earlier
that enables the Ambassador‑designate to learn about spectrum
management and to establish relationships with the domestic and
international spectrum players in government and industry. The CSIS Report examined the appointment of
the Ambassador in 2003 and recommended merging the ambassador positions
for the WRC and State’s Communications and Information Policy (CIP)
group into one position, as a political appointee. NTIA
believes that it is not feasible for the head of CIP to simultaneously
serve as the Head of Delegation due to time constraints and other
major responsibilities inherent in this CIP position.
The CSIS Report recommended that the President appoint the
Ambassador at least one year before the start of the WRC. The early appointment of a long–term ambassador
by the President, according to the CSIS Report, would give the United States
an effective international presence to achieve its spectrum goals.
The head of the U.S. Delegation
with a personal rank of ambassador can be advantageous to the United States. An appointed ambassador carries the necessary
prestige and influence to bring the United States Delegation together
and represent the United
States’ interests at the WRC.
The United States= negotiating strength is enhanced by the
use of an appointed political representative working with career
spectrum managers and ITU experts from other countries.
The political “clout” available to the appointed political
representative can prove invaluable in resolving difficult issues
during a WRC.
NTIA
believes it is important to have the U.S. WRC Head of Delegation
and the Delegation in place earlier than is possible under the current
statutory limitation that temporary ambassadors appointed without
Senate advice and consent may only serve for six months. NTIA
believes that a longer-serving Ambassador and Head of Delegation
will ultimately prove to be more effective.
This would require the requisite inter-agency coordination,
action by the Congress and approval by the President.
Based on past experience and the comments received, NTIA believes that it is important to bring the Ambassador
on board in some capacity prior to the CPM-2, since administrations
meet at the CPM to agree on the technical studies for the WRC. NTIA
believes that the Ambassador can use the experience at CPM-2 to
gain a necessary understanding of all of the issues that affect
United States interests, as one commenter
suggested.
The GAO Report noted staffing
concerns in NTIA and
the federal agencies. In the President’s 2006 budget proposals, the
Administration has recognized the need for greater resources to
maintain the U.S.
international spectrum activities.
A key part of this package is staffing increases for WRC-related
functions. NTIA
is planning to provide on-going funding for staff-level outreach
activities. The Department
of State and NTIA have provided information and communication resources
for WRC staff use in Geneva
for ITU-R meetings and conferences.
NTIA
requested comments regarding the need to provide the Ambassador
with an identified operational budget and how to best use representational
funds to conduct outreach efforts.
NTIA further sought input on what facilities are critical
to the functioning of the Delegation and the Ambassador at the conference
site.
Recognizing that agencies
and companies send representatives to the Delegation to participate
in debates, negotiations, and outreach efforts, NTIA
requested information on how the U.S. Delegation could support participation
in the WRC editorial committee.
The editorial committee is a standing committee of the WRC
that prepares the final treaty text for the international Radio
Regulations. This committee conducts its work in French as
the authentic language, together with the other working languages
of the Union. The spokespersons
and interested government and industry participants should review
editorial committee documents and assist the editorial committee
representatives in ensuring the correct translations are made based
on agreed upon text.
Over the years, there
has been concern among WRC participants (federal and non-federal)
regarding staffing issues. NTIA
sought comments on whether NTIA
and the federal agencies have sufficient staff with appropriate
expertise to support spectrum management activities in the WRC preparation
process.
Commenters
agreed that it is necessary to provide the Ambassador with an operational
budget to ensure the Ambassador and the delegation staff can complete
their missions. USITUA asserted
that an operational budget is necessary and critical for the Ambassador
and that the budget should be available immediately upon appointment
(if not upon nomination or some other designated capacity) so the
Ambassador can effectively perform the duties of the position. USITUA also recommended that Congress earmark
monies for WRC accounts for all three agencies (e.g., State, the
FCC and NTIA). NASA commented that representational funds should
not be the only source of funding for the Ambassador but an operational
budget must also be made available within an Office of Spectrum
Policy in the Executive Office of the President and/or the Department
of State. Winstar agreed that an operational budget is
necessary and recommended that representational funds be carefully
used in promoting the U.S. position once it has been set however,
representational funds should not “exceed the funding provided by
the federal government, nor must they be used to place our government
officials in a position whereby their independence is open to question.”
In this regard, in order
to adequately budget for WRC activities NTIA
sought the public’s comment on what facilities are critical to the
functioning of the Delegation and Ambassador at the WRC location. According to NASA, meeting rooms (large and
small), computer resources and secure facilities are critical resources
needed by the Ambassador and the Delegation.
For effective coordination during the WRC, NASA also commented
that “wireless networks, mobile phones and a delegation website
are crucial.”
[157]
USITUA asserted that facilities comparable to
those administered by State at WRC-03 are representative of the
requirements of the Delegation and the Ambassador, and should be
arranged as far in advance as possible.
[158]
USITUA also commented that for the United States
to be successful at the WRCs, the Ambassador should have a separate
meeting area for private meetings.
There should also be common delegation facilities to foster
better coordination on issues, and government agency staff should
be provided with wireless devices (e.g., cell phones and laptops).
[159]
Furthermore, USITUA recommended
that one government official should be designated and responsible
for coordinating the efforts of the United
States on the editorial committee. USITUA also added that given the perennial importance
of the committee, agencies should seek to hire or train individuals
in French and/or Spanish. According
to USITUA, “the scarcity of Government employees with linguistic
capabilities has been a long-standing weakness of U.S. delegations to ITU treaty conference
and should be remedied.” NASA suggested that small interest groups within
the U.S. Delegation work closely with “a small number of multi-lingual
delegates” to perform the duties of the
editorial committee.
WRC participants (federal
and non-federal) have expressed concern over staffing issues. USITUA advocated that as a general matter, NTIA and the federal agencies do not have sufficient
staff with appropriate expertise to support spectrum management
activities in the WRC preparation process. There is not enough training to account for,
and replace, retiring expertise, according to USITUA, and because
the WRC agenda is diverse and multifaceted, it is difficult to adequately
cover some of the issues. NASA suggested that staffing varies from agency
to agency and that expertise, more often than numbers, is essential. NASA asserted that NTIA
is reasonably staffed, but certainly not to excess. Winstar commented that it would appear the agencies
typically have staff with appropriate expertise in the areas in
which Winstar is primarily concerned. Winstar recommended an expanded U.S. Government
presence when impasses occur or key issues require escalated resources. USITUA commented that “it is critical for the
agencies to begin to develop additional staff expertise in the regulatory
and procedural aspects of a conference; while there is recognized
expertise; it is concentrated in a limited number of staff.” Winstar added that the U.S. Government should
consider planning to increase staffing.
To
ensure the Ambassador and the delegation staff can complete their
missions; it is necessary that the Department of State adequately
fund WRC activities. NTIA
believes that the federal agencies should budget for and provide
representational funds for use in promoting the U.S. positions. NTIA
recommends that State should continue to provide adequate resources
for WRC activities (staff, office facilities, travel funds for consultations
with other administrations, delegation training and representational
funds). NTIA
recommends that State continue to coordinate with the FCC, NTIA and the federal agencies on developing the budget.
Specific
facilities and equipment are critical to the functioning of the
Delegation and the Ambassador at the conference site.
NTIA agrees with the comments presented above and
recommends that State provide the Ambassador and the Delegation
with the appropriate facilities and service devices to perform their
mission. Facilities similar to those provided at WRCs
2000 and 2003 should serve as the basis for planning. One concern was that the U.S. participants should have the
proper communications equipment available to them during these conferences.
NTIA will ensure
that its spokespersons are provided with cell phones, laptop computers
and appropriate hardware (e.g. RLAN card) and software at the WRC
and recommends that State, the FCC and other federal agencies fully
support their respective WRC delegates.
Representatives
from the Delegation should provide support to the editorial committee,
as this is one of many obligations of serving on the Delegation. However, NTIA
recognizes that delegates with language skills are expected by their
sponsors to participate in all activity related to their issues. The hours that the editorial committee works
are often long and late, and at times the committee work continues
while other work has ceased. Participants
in the editorial committee may find themselves, because of their
language skills, covering other delegates’ issues while those other
delegates are at that time serving in other conference committees.
Therefore, the process of coordinating these delegates who
have other time commitments becomes very complex.
NTIA recommends that State provide a government employee
to serve as both a spokesperson and as the U.S. Delegation coordinator
for participation on the editorial committee.
The
U.S. Government has a scarcity of employees with linguistic capabilities
on U.S. WRC delegations. While
complying with all staffing level review processes, NTIA,
along with the FCC, State and the federal agencies, should plan
for additional staff and hire employees, as appropriate, who are
fluent in French, Spanish and other languages used in the editorial
committee. The agencies could also train existing employees
in conversational French, Spanish and other languages. However, because these delegates need to focus
on negotiations and outreach this would not solve the problem of
providing U.S. Government personnel with language expertise to assist
in the editorial committee. Consistent
with all applicable hiring and staffing procedures, the U.S. Government
could also hire temporary personnel fluent in one or more of these
languages during the period of the CPM and WRC to assist in the
editorial committee. Temporary personnel fluent with respect to a
conversational language may be of little benefit because ITU technical
terminology is unlikely to be known without the person having had
previous ITU experience.
The
WRC preparation process works best with clearly defined but flexible
roles and activities for staff over the duration of the WRC preparation
process. With few exceptions full-time government employees
must be available for the entire preparatory period in order to
effectively serve as issue coordinators and spokespersons. NTIA
as well as State, the FCC and other federal agencies should plan
to increase staffing, again while complying with all staffing level
review processes, in order to commit sufficient resources to the
ITU and WRC processes. As one option, NTIA
recommends consideration of part-time, limited duration or contract
staff for certain functions to supplement full-time government staff. Those functions can include participation in
the WRC editorial committee, translation and assistance with bilateral
consultations, and direct administrative and technical support to
WRC staff.
There is currently only limited government staff with
expertise in regulatory and procedural matters which appear in the
Radio Regulations and are subject to change by conferences.
NTIA recommends that all agencies develop additional
staff expertise in the regulatory and procedural aspects of the
Radio Regulations as well as the general rules of conferences by
identifying qualified individuals and through specific training.
The
U.S. Delegation to WRC-03 conducted the first delegation training
day. This event was designed to bring up to a common
threshold of experience for all of the U.S. delegates, many of whom were
new to WRCs. The training
covered rules of procedure for conduct of WRCs, microphone etiquette,
negotiation strategy and customs and courtesies.
The training day also served as a “team building” exercise,
reviewing all the agenda items and associated U.S.
positions, so that all delegates had some level of familiarity. It also provided a first opportunity for the
Delegation as a whole to identify itself as a unit.
Prior to WRC-03, NTIA developed preparatory training for federal employees
interested in participating in ITU-R or WRC activities. The training provides a fundamental background
in the ITU with a focus on the ITU-R as well as regional preparatory
bodies and trains individuals to prepare for, and participate in
meetings of these groups. NTIA
will explore further development and expansion of this program. For many years, NTIA
has offered formal spectrum management training for federal government
employees and their contractor support.
This training includes classes on international aspects of
spectrum management and international/United States WRC preparatory
processes. State’s Foreign Service Institute offers multi-lateral
diplomacy and negotiations training, which is open to all U.S. Government
employees. NTIA has begun sending their WRC personnel to this
training.
NTIA
requested comments on the availability of trained and qualified
federal government spokespersons and issue coordinators throughout
the WRC preparatory process and during the WRC.
NTIA requested input on the need for training programs
for spokespersons and delegates and preparatory training for general
participation in ITU-R study groups.
NTIA also requested comments on maintaining a cadre
of experienced personnel in the federal government in order for
them to assume leadership and spokesperson roles at future WRCs.
With respect to the question
regarding whether trained and qualified government spokespersons
are available throughout the WRC preparatory process and during
the WRC, NASA noted that they generally are available. However, USITUA asserted that the coordinators
and spokespersons are qualified, but are not provided meaningful
training to prepare for their responsibilities.
Regarding
the need for training programs for U.S. spokesperson, USITUA advocated
that training programs, consisting of public speaking and international
negotiations, should be mandatory for spokespersons and delegates. USITUA mentioned the usefulness of the U.S.
delegation training day exercise and urges its continuance. USITUA also recommended that language training
should be available to career WRC staff.
[172]
NASA
commented that orientation and mentorship is helpful for new delegation
participants, but experience is the best guide.
However, NASA argued that mandatory training for experienced
delegates is probably unnecessary.
NASA commented that preparatory
training for general participation in ITU-R study groups in support
of WRC activities is not necessary because of the difficulties in
providing training appropriate to the level of experience of everyone
on the Delegation. However, NASA
recommended that State publish guidelines/expectations
for delegate participation at such meetings and consider publishing
web-based training materials for those interested in the process. USITUA noted that preparatory training for general
participation in the ITU-R study groups is necessary. USITUA stated that “on the job training is critical
to developing the fluency on the issue that many of our foreign
counterparts have. Therefore,
staff should be sent to study group meetings along with experienced
staff to benefit from mentoring and training.”
NTIA
also sought public comment on steps that should be taken to maintain
experienced government spokespersons and leaders at WRCs. NASA comments that there is a general need for
the federal government to retain experienced spectrum management
personnel because of the limited number of experienced personnel
in this particular field who often switch employers. USITUA commented “that the U.S. Government should
find ways to recognize the importance of
these WRC roles.”
Retaining
a well-trained and educated cadre of WRC spokespersons and issue
coordinators is important for the United
States to continue to have the
success it has had during WRCs.
However, training by itself is typically insufficient to account for
and replace, retiring expertise.
NTIA recommends that federal agencies hire trained
and experienced personnel to the maximum extent possible and pursue
the available training described above, coupled with on-the-job
training in those instances where experienced personnel are not
available. On-the-job training
is a key component to the success of U.S. preparations for and performance
at conferences. NTIA recommends that agencies send new personnel to the
ITU, regional and other meetings with experienced personnel to benefit
from on-site mentoring and training.
This is critical to developing the fluency on issues that
many of our foreign counterparts have.
As pointed out in the comments, there
are too few experienced spectrum management personnel who can perform
the leadership roles necessary to help the U.S. Delegation. Therefore, NTIA
recommends agencies consider increasing in-grade levels for WRC
staff, quality step increases and other recognition as appropriate. NTIA
recognizes the importance of its personnel who are responsible for
many technical, operational, procedural and regulatory aspects of
ITU-R conference and meeting preparations and will be considering
these recommendations.
The National Table of
Frequency Allocations is comprised of the U.S. Government Table
of Frequency Allocations and the FCC Table of Frequency Allocations
and allows for specific spectrum to be used exclusively by the U.S.
Government, exclusively by the private sector only, or on a shared
basis. Therefore, any changes adopted by a WRC could
directly impact upon spectrum use for the U.S. Government and commercial
entities. On behalf of the
executive branch agencies, NTIA,
through the IRAC process, has overall responsibility to review the
WRC Final Acts, determine the effects on the federal agencies, and
to decide what provisions should be implemented domestically.
NTIA sends its proposals to the FCC recommending revisions
to the National Table of Frequency Allocations. The FCC publishes a notice or notices of proposed
rulemaking covering the items in the WRC Final Acts. The result of this process is a new national
table implementing the agreed government and non-government provisions
from the WRC. While either
agency can be the first to propose a specific implementation of
a WRC outcome, all changes to the allocation table must go through
an FCC rulemaking. Therefore, FCC priorities and schedules have
served as the process through which all implementation must proceed.
Over the years, the United States
has had difficulty implementing domestically, in a timely manner,
all WRC decisions. To address
this issue effectively, NTIA
requested comments on what could be done to improve the implementation
process. The GAO Report noted that federal agencies are
concerned that WRC allocation decisions of primary interest to the
federal government often go without action. NTIA
sought comments on how to improve the process to ensure equal treatment
of both government and private sector interests.
NTIA also requested
comments regarding whether the FCC and NTIA
should develop a plan and schedule to complete rulemaking for each
WRC agenda item.
NASA commented that all
WRC decisions should be considered by NTIA
and the FCC in a timely manner.
In the past, WRC decisions that only affected or benefited
the federal government were not implemented in a timely manner,
NASA stated, sometimes being delayed as long as eight or more years.
NASA noted that the process laid out following WRC-2003 will
be a major improvement if it is completed as scheduled. According to USITUA, the implementation process
has been uneven in the past where implementation of WRC items often
languished in the aftermath of the WRCs. However, USITUA commented that significant steps
have been taken by NTIA
and the FCC to improve this process and commended both agencies
for having taken “pro-active steps in establishing a clear and transparent
timeline for implementation of WRC-03 decisions and the outstanding
ones from prior conferences.”
The GAO Report noted that
the federal agencies are concerned that WRC allocation decisions
of primary interest to the federal government go without action. NTIA
sought the public’s comment on how to improve the process and ensure
all interests are treated fairly.
NASA commented that the process can be improved by NTIA
and FCC working together on the WRC implementation schedule. NASA also noted that Office of Spectrum Policy
oversight would ensure timely implementation of results. USITUA stated that there should be no distinction
between government and private sector when implementing WRC items
are concerned because industries are dependent on opportunities
derived from implementation of both.
USITUA also commented that timely implementation of both
is critical and that NTIA and the FCC should establish a consensus timeline
to eliminate the past problems.
The commenters agreed
that the FCC and NTIA
should develop a plan and schedule to complete rulemaking for each
WRC agenda item. NASA recommended that NTIA
and the FCC should jointly develop a plan with a suitable schedule
and should complete rulemakings within one year following the conclusion
of the WRC for all WRC agenda items. USIIUA suggested that a timeline be announced
within three to six months of the close of the WRC, with complete
implementation within 18-24 months. According to Winstar, the timing for rulemakings
depends on the priority given them by NTIA
and the FCC and that industry participation at conferences is motivated
both by international and domestic considerations with the expectation
that domestic rulemaking will take place and will take into account,
without being bound by, the results of the conferences. NYS and FACS commented that “the U.S.
team should be applauded for its preparation and achievement at
the recent WRC-03 and encouraged to advance the public interest
by swiftly implementing all of the WRC-03 allocations.” NYS and FACS argued against the FCC promulgating
a notice and comment rulemaking for each WRC agenda item because
this will further delay WRC implementation and will have “negative
consequences for U.S.
competitiveness.” However,
they added that these rulemakings should be initiated only “where
an insufficient record exists or if the allocation impacts an unknown
number of potential providers in an undeveloped industry.”
A concerted effort between NTIA
and the FCC at senior management levels improved the implementation
of the WRC Final Acts. Most
items from past conferences have now been completed in FCC rulemakings. NTIA
and the FCC have agreed to a joint plan for implementing the WRC-03
Final Acts, in fact, the FCC has already conducted rulemakings on
some of the agenda items. With
the assistance of the IRAC, NTIA has developed proposals for implementing the
WRC-03 Final Acts as they relate to outstanding items, and has forwarded
the recommendations for national implementation to the FCC. The FCC, in turn, has adopted and released an
omnibus rulemaking implementing the Final Acts of WRC-03.
NTIA
will continue to work with the FCC to publish a joint plan and schedule
to complete rulemakings for each WRC agenda item within six months
of WRC completion. NTIA
and the FCC have taken a pro-active step in establishing a clear
and transparent timeline for implementation of WRC-03 decisions
including outstanding WRC agenda items from prior conferences. NTIA
recommends that this approach be formalized.
NTIA, working with State and the FCC, has already
addressed a number of the past deficiencies that could place United States’ interests at risk at
WRCs. For example, the United States developed positions
on key WRC issues in preparation for WRC-03, with no outstanding
issues. However, in retrospect, the United States could have benefited
further by developing many of these positions earlier in the preparatory
process. CITEL supported
over 90 percent of United
States proposals prior to the WRC.
The United States
successfully covered the issues at these WRCs with the appropriate
experts. NTIA,
working with State and the FCC, also identified these experts early
in the preparations. NTIA
sought comments on the effectiveness of U.S. preparations for WRCs.
Until
recently, each WRC has proposed longer and more involved agendas
than the preceding WRC. For
WRC-03, the agenda contained 48 identified items.
These items touched on almost all radio services and frequency
bands. Bringing these disparate
issues to resolution requires a large number of experienced government
experts. For instance, WRC
agendas include not only modifications to the regulations, but studies
and other items that are unnecessary for treatment by a treaty conference.
The cumulative effect has resulted in increased costs to
the U.S. Government, the private sector, the ITU, and other member
states. The longer agendas
have also complicated the U.S. preparatory process and increased
the timeframe to implement WRC outcomes.
The proposals for the next conference
agenda are often the last to be developed within the U.S.
preparatory process. At WRC-2000,
the United States
did not submit its proposals for future conferences until after
the conference started. CITEL
also considers future agenda items only at its final preparatory
meeting. To better understand how to reduce the number
of unnecessary WRC agenda items, NTIA
requested comments on the frequency of WRCs and limiting WRC agendas.
The functions of WRCs within the ITU are directed by the ITU’s Plenipotentiary
Conferences that are held every four years. ITU Plenipotentiary Conferences establish overall
ITU policies and funding. Proposals
were submitted to the 2002 International Telecommunication Union
Plenipotentiary Conference (held in Marrakesh,
Morocco)
by a number of administrations proposing significant changes in
the organizational structure of the ITU, including changes in the
ITU treaty development process that could affect the role and functions
of WRC’s. The decision reached at Marrakesh relative to these proposals was to
task the ITU Council to develop specific proposals for consideration
at the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.
WRC-03 broke all past
precedents in terms of the scope of the agenda.
Its 48 separate agenda items represented roughly a doubling
of the agenda’s size from the WRC-2000.
USITUA suggested that the WRCs should occur often enough
to meet the needs of both U.S. Government and industry, while allowing
sufficient time to perform the necessary technical work to support
the agenda items. Winstar suggested that WRCs should occur at
regular intervals with limited agendas and that the duration of
the conference should be no more than three weeks. NASA stated that the period between successive
WRCs should be no less than three years and no more than five years. NASA argued that “[t]his ensures that there
may be sufficient time to perform the necessary technical work to
support the agenda items while at the same time keeping the WRCs
timely and relevant.” According to NASA, “WRC Agendas should be limited
to those items that have a realistic chance of resolution by the
next conference.”
NTIA
believes that the United States should work in the WRC preparation
process to ensure that: a) the period between successive WRCs is
between three to four years, allowing sufficient time to perform
the necessary technical work to support the agenda items, b) the
conference should be no more than four weeks in duration as a goal
and c) WRC agendas should be limited to those items that have a
realistic chance of resolution by the next conference. The United States will also need to participate
actively in policy-making activities of the ITU directed toward
improving the ITU treaty development process, especially those activities
affecting the role and functions of future WRCs.
The United States
should place more emphasis on preparation of proposals and delegation
positions regarding future conference agenda items to improve our
preparatory process. The
three lead agencies in WRC preparations, State, the FCC and NTIA,
should develop a more consistent approach regarding United States input for future WRC
agenda items and follow-on support during the current WRC cycle. For example, if the United States contributes a proposal for a future
agenda item, the three lead agencies should ensure that the United States
position supports that agenda item throughout the following WRC
cycle. These agencies should institute a policy to
ensure that future conference agendas are an integral part of the
preparatory process and associated proposals
are finalized to the extent possible in the same time frame as other
United States
proposals, recognizing that proposals for future WRC agendas depend
upon what the current WRC accomplishes. That
often is not clear until the WRC is well under way, and of course
can not be known prior to the WRC’s commencement.
Clear guidelines must be set for what kind, number and type
of agenda items are to be considered for proposals.
Guidelines that the United
States has already presented in
the ITU are:
a)
an approach other than WRC
is the best way to address issues not of a worldwide character;
b)
limit WRC’s scope to allocations,
allotments or assignments of a worldwide character and regulatory
aspects necessary to implement an allocation, allotment or assignment;
c)
WRCs should not deal with issues which either have
not yet been studied or the studies have not yet reached the maturity
of requiring an allocation, allotment or assignment by the time
of the WRC; and
d)
agenda items not disposed of during the course
of two consecutive WRCs should not be addressed by the following
WRC.
NTIA believes that the results of past WRCs reflect
that while the United
States is able to work quite well
in the ITU WRC environment to protect and promote its interests,
the U.S. WRC preparatory process should continually be improved
to keep up with the changing international environment. The
United States
was successful at these conferences in a large part due to the involvement
of the federal agencies and the private sector and the oversight
of the technical and proposal preparation processes by State, the
FCC, and NTIA. Before
WRC-03, NTIA actively
sought the involvement of a number of federal agencies that had
never before participated and sought for the first time to identify
agency representatives as issue coordinators throughout the preparatory
process.
The
U.S. Government should regularly review its WRC preparation
process to ensure that it remains current with the evolving spectrum
requirements and technologies and the international negotiating
environment. In learning from past WRCs and by synthesizing
best practices, NTIA
recommends that improvements be made in several key areas of WRC
preparation, including:
Senior-Level Engagement. As demonstrated in preparing for WRC-03,
the resolution of difficult issues and the ultimate success
at the WRC can be better achieved through greater engagement of
agency leadership. Senior participation and policy direction at
early points could greatly facilitate issue resolution. Earlier resolution means early preparation and
an earlier opportunity to convey U.S. views. The
Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy at the Department
of State, the NTIA
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and the FCC
Chairman have continued to improve their interagency communications,
taking a more forward-looking approach to accommodate advances in
technology. This engagement will be carried into the WRC
preparatory processes for WRC-07.
Cooperation and Coordination of Federal
and Non-Federal Preparations.
NTIA believes that while the federal and non-federal
preparatory processes are currently working well, State, NTIA and the FCC should continue to seek opportunities
for early and ongoing dialog.
International Consultations and Communication. State, the FCC and NTIA
have actively been pursuing ways to better coordinate to improve
our international consultation efforts as we prepare for international
fora such as WRCs. In many
instances, European or Asian-Pacific, Arab or African nations come
to the WRC with unified positions.
The United States’ ability to reach consensus early
with other countries in the Americas
on important issues helps ensure that U.S. policy views will prevail in
the WRC.
Consultations with other countries
at all levels need to be a constant activity throughout the WRC
cycle in order for the United
States to be successful in conveying
its views to others. We are already well on the way to meeting this
goal for the next WRC in 2007.
Delegation Preparation. NTIA believes that the United States can take steps to better
prepare our delegations through creating delegations, selecting
spokespersons and issue coordinators, and appointing a highly qualified
Ambassador as early as possible.
Implementation. As
noted earlier, NTIA
and the FCC are working hard to ensure that implementation of the
WRC Final Acts are completed in a timely manner.
Early implementation of any WRC results provides certainty
to industry facilitates planning activities and stimulates investment
and job creation. Establishing a clear implementation plan and
moving quickly to carry it forward fulfills these goals.
The radio
spectrum is vital both to our national and economic security. NTIA
looks forward to working in continued partnership with Congress
to develop the best possible process for preparing for United States participation in WRCs.