International Telecommunication Union 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference ReportUnited States Delegation Report Marrakesh, Morocco
September 23 - October 18, 2002
Submitted to the Secretary of State TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary II. Conference Preparatory Efforts IV. Structure of the Conference
V. Results of the Conference VI. Conclusion
Appendix A. Speech by Ambassador Gross The 2002 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Plenipotentiary Conference was held in Marrakesh, Morocco from September 23 to October 18, 2002. The Plenipotentiary Conference is the supreme organ of the ITU and is convened every four years. The agenda for this Conference included issues involving the strategic policy and planning of the Union, establishing a budgetary ceiling for expenditure until the next Plenipotentiary in 2006, considering proposals to amend the ITU Constitution and Convention, and the elections of the Secretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-General, the Directors of the three Bureaus, the members of the Radio Regulations Board and the member governments of the ITU Council.
The United States had several key objectives at this Conference: re-elect the United States to the ITU Council and re-elect James Carroll to the Radio Regulations Board; maintain a budget ceiling reflecting zero nominal growth and promote transparency in the ITU budget; maintain the current structure of the ITU; and ensure the stability and security of the Internet while promoting private sector leadership and addressing issues of national sovereignty. In addition to accomplishing these objectives, the U.S. addressed other issues consistent with U.S. policy as they emerged.
Elections - The U.S. was overwhelmingly re-elected to the 46-member ITU Council. In fact, despite a very difficult international environment, the U.S. received more votes than any other time in ITU history. Council elections produced one suprise - the United Kingdom was defeated in its bid for re-election, and for the first time, Turkey was elected to a Council seat. The U.S. candidate to the 12 member Radio Regulations Board, James Carroll, was re-elected. Incumbents were re-elected to the positions of Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General, Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Sector and Director of the Telecommunication Development Sector. Valery Timofeev of the Russian Federation was elected as head of the Radiocommunication Sector replacing Bob Jones of Canada, who had served the maximum two terms.
Finances - The key issue of the Conference was the financial state of the ITU, which has reached a crisis level. Members adopted an upper limit for the contributory unit of 330,000 Swiss francs (U.S. $219,000), an increase of 15,000 francs over the last budgetary period. As a result of this increase, several countries reduced their contributory units, with the most significant reductions coming from European countries. This created a budget deficit of approximately 21 million Swiss francs ($14 million) over the next four years that forced the Conference to make a further round of cuts in the ITU budget to bring it back into balance. The resulting four-year financial plan calls for across-the-board reductions in ITU costs, including reductions in staff.
ITU Structure - The U.S. succeeded in stemming efforts by some countries for immediate, significant restructuring of the ITU. While members agreed that the ITU must restructure to meet the requirements of a changing telecommunications environment, a compromise was reached to study to overall structure and functions of the organization over the next four years. The U.S. was particularly concerned about European efforts for immediate change to the standardization work of the ITU that could have diminished the intergovernmental nature of the Telecommunication Standardization sector and harmed U.S. industry interests.
Internet Issues - While member states have become significantly more interested in the issues related to Internet governance, the U.S. successfully worked to ensure that the three ITU resolutions concerning management of the Internet reaffirmed private sector leadership in this area and limited the ITU involvement to its core competencies.
Palestinian Authority Resolution - The Conference adopted a resolution containing compromise text acceptable to Israel, the Arab states and the U.S.
International Telecommunications Regulations - The U.S. achieved its goals with respect to proposals to review the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). ITRs establish treaty regulations related to international telecommunication networks and services offered to the public. The Conference agreed to a review of the ITRs that could ultimately lead to a World Conference to revise these treaty instruments. However, the 2006 Plenipotentiary Conference will further assess the need for a World Conference, based on the results of the review.
Radiocommunication Issues - The Conference considered resolutions addressing procedures that govern satellite network filings and cost-recovery for such filings. Regarding the former, the U.S. successfully protected its position regarding equitable access to the orbital arc. The cost-recovery resolution brings into force penalties (i.e. loss of "place in line" in the ITU priorities queue) for non-payment of cost recovery fees. This resolution should help reduce the satellite network filings backlog by weeding out at least some "paper" satellites without unduly antagonizing U.S. regional partners in Latin America.
World Summit On The Information Society (WSIS) - The Conference approved three WSIS-related documents supported by the U.S. These documents ensure that the ITU will play a substantive role in the WSIS in addition to its lead managerial role in organizing the event. In November 2001, the Deputy Executive Director of the State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs made a trip to Marrakesh, Morocco to survey the site for the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference regarding hotels for the delegation as well as delegation office space. It was decided to reserve a block of rooms for the delegation in the Mansour Eddahbi, which was an attractive and very convenient hotel adjacent to the Convention Center. In addition, the fourth floor of an office building behind the hotel was rented for delegation offices.
The U.S. Embassy in Rabat assisted with contracts for the office spaces, equipment, supplies, and personnel to staff it. The Embassy also assigned two regional security officers and two FSN security staff to provide coverage for the duration of the conference. In addition, a senior FSN from the U.S. Consulate General in Casablanca assisted the delegation for most of the conference.
The delegation offices were quite spacious with an office for the head of delegation, a large meeting room, a work room and a small lunch room equipped with a refrigerator. Preparing the proposals and positions which the United States would advocate at the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference began in the fall of 2001. The initial focus was to develop positions and written contributions to the ITU Strategic Plan Working Group, which had as its mandate the preparation of a draft strategic plan for the period 2003-2006. The United States submitted written comments on the early ITU draft, and helped to shape the plan into a document, which the United States could support. The State Department hosted a series of meetings concerning preparations for the Plenipotentiary Conference under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC) from late October 2001 to the spring of 2002.
The United States submitted its proposals to modify the ITU Constitution and Convention by the January 23, 2002 deadline. The task was facilitated by the preparatory work done by the Group of Experts on Reform, an ITU body in which the U.S. participated. Representatives from government agencies and the private sector participated in ITAC meetings focused on preparing for the Plenipotentiary Conference.
The delegation was formed and held its first meeting in early July. Ambassador David A. Gross, U.S. Coordinator, International Communications and Information Policy, Department of State was named to head the U.S. delegation. He had previously served as Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference in Istanbul in March 2002. In the months leading up to the Plenipotentiary Conference, U.S. officials took advantage of bilateral meetings to discuss issues relevant to the conference. Plenipotentiary topics were discussed with British officials during bilaterals in Washington in June. A Canadian delegation also traveled to Washington in late August for discussions that focused exclusively on the conference. U.S. multilateral coordination included extensive consultations with Western Hemisphere nations in the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL), a specialized body of the Organization of American States. A CITEL Plenipotentiary Preparatory meeting was held in Washington at OAS Headquarters in May 2002.
Ambassador Gross, joined by FCC Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy and Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory, held numerous bilateral and informal discussions at the Plenipotentiary Conference itself. Ambassador Gross used these bilaterals to advance U.S. positions and gain support for U.S. re-election to the ITU Council and re-election of U.S. candidate, James Carroll, to the Radio Regulations Board. Assistant Secretary Victory held a number of bilaterals to discuss ICANN and other Internet-related issues. Formal bilaterals were held with South Africa, Mali, Cameroon, Israel, Egypt, China, Brazil, Morocco and Tunisia.
In contrast to past Plenipotentiary Conferences where the U.S. delegation hosted one big reception for all the delegates, this time the U.S. delegation hosted several smaller events - a dinner, a luncheon for CITEL countries and two receptions - spread over the first three weeks of the Conference.
1. Re-elect the United States to the ITU Council.
2. Maintain the current structure of the ITU.
3. Ensure that Member States continue to set policy and 4. Enact the changes in the ITU Constitution and Convention described in the U.S. proposals.
5. Achieve greater efficiency and transparency of ITU processes through better use of existing authority (i.e. the ITU Council).
6. Re-elect James Carroll, a U.S. national, to the Radio Regulations Board.
7. Maintain a budget ceiling reflecting zero nominal growth, promote transparency in the budget, and advocate linkage between strategic, operational and financial planning.
8. Ensure the stability and security of the Internet, while promoting private sector leadership and limiting ITU involvement to its core competencies.
9. Manage political issues, so as to prevent them from unduly disrupting the work of the Conference.
10. Ensure that the ITU remains a treaty-based organization while enhancing the opportunity for The Conference structure, committee chairpersons, and United States spokespersons were:
Chairman of the Conference: Mr. Nasr Hajji (Morocco) The Committee consisted of the Chairman and Vice Chairmen of the Conference and of the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the other Committees and Working Group of the Plenary.
Chairman: Mr. Nasr Hajji or Mr. Abderrazak Berrada Terms of Reference: Committee 2 - Credentials
Chairman: Mr. Victor Grigorascu (Romania) Terms of Reference: Chairman: Mr. Emmanuel Owusu-Adansi (Ghana) Terms of Reference: Committee 4 - Editorial Committee
Chairman: Ms. Marie-Therese Alajouanine (France) United States Spokesperson: Ms. Mary Townswick (State Department)
Terms of Reference: Committee 5 - Policy, Reform and Legal United States Spokespersons: Mr. Richard Beaird (State Department) Chairman: Mr. Bruce Gracie (Canada) United States Spokesman: Mr. Thomas Cooney (State Department) Terms of Reference: Working Group of the Plenary (General Matters)
Chairman: Ms. Lyndall Shope Mafole (South Africa)
Terms of Reference: Palestinian Authority Resolution
The Conference approved a resolution titled “Assistance and Support for the Palestinian Authority for Rebuilding its Telecommunications Networks.” Forty-five Member States (mostly from the Arab bloc and Africa) sponsored a proposed resolution that largely tracked the language used in a compromise resolution adopted at the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference held in Istanbul in March 2002. It included language Israel found objectionable. Ambassador David Gross read a brief U.S. intervention stating that the proposal was unbalanced. No other Member State intervened. Following the U.S. statement, the Conference Chairman announced that he would form a small group of interested parties to discuss compromise language to be reported to a subsequent Plenary session as a Chairman’s document. The small group chaired by Morocco, which used its influence as host of the conference, met to work out a compromise. The informal discussions were successful and an acceptable compromise text was adopted in Plenary without discussion.
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)
The Plenipotentiary Conference approved three WSIS-related documents: a resolution that will guide the work of the ITU with respect to WSIS through 2006: an information document on the activities of the ITU with respect to the information society; and, finally, guidelines for ITU input to the preparatory process of the WSIS. Russia, Switzerland, Canada, Tunisia, France, Mali and the United States led the efforts to produce these documents. Countries agreed early in the conference on the need for the ITU to be more fully involved in the substantive dimension of the WSIS, particularly because the WSIS preparatory process has thus far stalled on the development of themes for the Summit.
Of particular note, the guidelines for the ITU input to the Summit contain a lengthy section on ICT The highlight of the second week of the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh was the elections of the organization's senior management officials as well as the election of countries to the 46-member ITU Council. The United States succeeded in getting re-elected to Council, with the largest number of votes it has ever received in ITU history. The U.S. candidate, James Carroll, also won re-election to the Radio Regulations Board.
Elections for ITU Officials, the ITU Council (consisting of representatives from twenty-five percent of ITU Member States) and the ITU Radio Regulations Board took up a significant portion of the second week of the Plenipotentiary Conference. Elections for the Secretary General and Deputy Secretary General were held on Tuesday, October 1. The Secretary General, Yoshio Utsumi of Japan, was re-elected to a second term in an unopposed race. He received 123 votes out of a total of 143 valid votes cast. Twenty Member States abstained. The incumbent Deputy The Plenipotentiary held elections for the Directors of the three ITU Sectors on Wednesday, October 2. Houlin Zhao of China, head of the Telecommunication Standardization Sector, and Hamadoun Toure from Mali, head of the Telecommunication Development Sector, both ran unopposed and both were re-elected for second terms.
The four-person race for the head of the Radiocommunication Sector, being vacated by the retiring Canadian Bob Jones, required two rounds of voting to elect Valery Timofeev of the Russian Federation. The candidates for the post were: Fabio Bigi, a former ITU staff member in the Telecommunication Standardization Sector from Italy; Kavous Arasteh, of Iran; Malcolm Johnson, a senior official from the United Kingdom's Radiocommunications Agency with a long experience in ITU affairs as head or deputy head of the U.K. delegation; and Valery Timofeev of the Russian Federation. Mr. Timofeev, Deputy Minister of Communications, served as a member of the ITU Radio Regulations Board and was an active participant in many ITU Radiocommunication and Plenipotentiary Conferences over more than two decades.
The first round of ballots did not result in a majority for any candidate. Mr. Bigi received 17 votes; Mr. Arasteh, 23 votes; Mr. Johnson, 50 votes; and Mr. Timofeev, 56 votes. Iran withdrew Mr. Arasteh's candidacy before the second round of voting. In the second round, Mr. Timofeev received more than the necessary majority of 74 votes to win. The results were: Bigi, 7; Johnson, 59; and Timofeev, 83.
Elections took place for the ITU Council and Radio Regulations Board on Thursday, October 3. The United States was successful in both races. Out of the 189 Member States, 46 Member States (representative of the five geographic regions of the ITU) are elected to Council to represent the total membership in the interval between Plenipotentiary Conferences. The following Member States were elected: Americas Region - the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Suriname, and Venezuela; Western European Region - France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey; Eastern European Region - Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, and Russia; African Region - Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Morocco, Senegal, South Africa, Tunisia, and Uganda; Asian Region - Australia, China, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
First-time Council Members include: Ghana, Turkey, Norway and Suriname. Iran last served on Council in 1982 and Uganda in 1973. The number of votes that the United States received for Council (113) may have been the largest for the U.S. in ITU history. Notably, the United Kingdom did not get re-elected to Council. The main surprise in the election for Council was the United Kingdom's failure to retain its Council seat, in spite of active campaigning and such gestures as proposing to increase the number of its contributory units this year from 8 to 10.
Member States elected the following members of the Radio Regulations Board: Americas Region - James Carroll (United States) and Carlos Merchan Escalante (Mexico); Western European Region - Pierre Aboudarham (France) and Gabor Kovacs (Hungary); Eastern European Region - Wladyslaw Moron (Poland) and Momcilo Cimic (Yugoslavia); African Region - Hassan Lebbadi (Morocco), Shola Taylor (Nigeria), and Aboubakar Zourmba (Cameroon); Asia and Australasia Region - R.N. Agarwal (India), Akhtar Ahmad Bajwa (Pakistan), and Ki-Soo Lee (Republic of Korea).
The purpose of the Steering Committee is to facilitate the work of the Conference and to plan the order and number of meetings. The Committee was chaired by Mr. Nasr Hajji, Secretary of State in charge of Posts, Telecommunications and Information Technologies of Morocco, the host government. When Secretary Hajji was not available, Mr. Abderrazak Berrada substituted for him as Conference Chairman. The Steering Committee was composed of the Vice Chairmen of the Conference and the Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of the Conference Committees. Secretary-General Utsumi and other ITU officials participated as advisers. Ambassador Gross, head of the United States delegation, served as a Vice Chairman of the Conference and was, therefore, a member of the Steering Committee.
The afternoon before the opening of the Conference, Secretary-General Utsumi convened an informal meeting of the heads of delegation to the Conference. The purpose of the meeting was to identify any objections to his proposed committee structure and the proposed slate of Chairmen and Vice Chairmen for the Conference and the Committees. This proposed structure had been developed in consultation with a number of delegations.
The Steering Committee met several times during the Plenipotentiary Conference to establish schedules and the times for elections.
The terms of reference for Committee 2 were to verify the credentials of delegations attending the Marrakesh Plenipotentiary Conference, to approve transfers of power from one country to another, and to report its conclusions to the Plenary. There were a number of credentials which did not meet the requirements of the ITU Convention; however, most of these problems were resolved by an exchange of faxes with the governments involved.
The Credentials Committee was chaired by Victor Grigorascu of Romania. At its first meeting, it set up a Working Group to verify credentials and transfers of powers of delegations, in accordance with Article 31 of the International Telecommunication Union Convention. The United States and a number of other countries participated in the Working Group, which found 145 countries' credentials to be in order; those countries were eligible to vote and sign the Final Acts. Five other countries without the right to vote deposited credentials, which were found to be in order; they were eligible to sign the Final Acts of the conference. Delegations from another five countries either did not deposit credentials or their credentials were not in order.
Due to the high level of interest in the elections, a number of countries obtained transfers of power or proxies. In accordance with Article 31 of the ITU Convention, a member of the Union can give the delegation of another member the power to vote and sign the Final Acts on its behalf. Each member is limited to one proxy. Seven countries that were unable to attend the Plenipotentiary Conference offered proxies to other counties; the United States received a transfer of power from the Marshall Islands. In addition, three countries that were unable to stay for the duration of the one-month long conference transferred powers to three countries. The Budget Control Committee’s terms of reference require it to determine resources available to delegates, approve expenditures to meet those requirements, and report to Plenary on both the costs of the conference and the costs of executing decisions taken by the conference. The overall conference budget was CHF 4.945 million. Final estimates of conference costs were CHF 4.355 million representing an estimated savings of CHF 590,000. Much of these savings were realized through tight control of document reproduction costs, and reduction in the number of Geneva staff on-site to support the conference. Overall estimates of resources needed to execute decisions taken by the conference were not determined, primarily because staff and delegates’ time was spent working on the draft financial plan and budget. These estimates will be developed by the ITU Budget Office following return to Geneva, and are to be reported to Council 2003.
F. Committee 4 - Editorial Committee
The mandate of the Editorial Committee is to perfect the form of the texts to be included in the Final Acts of the Conference, without altering the meaning. These texts are then submitted to the Plenary for final approval. The Plenary is charged with either approving the edited texts or referring them back to the appropriate committee for further examination.
The United States had two principal objectives in the Editorial Committee: (1) to ensure that the edited French and English texts had the same meaning (bearing in mind the provision in the Convention that states that "In case of a discrepancy or dispute, the French text shall prevail."), and (2) that the texts accurately reflected the negotiated agreements reached in the substantive committees.
G. Committee 5 - Policy, Reform and Legal
RADIOCOMMUNICATION ISSUES
Status of Observers at World Radiocommunication Conferences
The Plenipotentiary resolved the issue of the status of Observers at World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs) to the satisfaction of the U.S. Delegation. The Conference adopted a plenary statement for the record confirming the ITU practice prior to the World Radiocommunication Conference-2000. This statement makes clear that in the context of WRCs, observers from other U.N. agencies may submit information documents related to their mandates, which can be noted by Member States. Further, with the authorization of the Conference Chairman, such observers may provide advice on the floor on points relevant to their mandates so long as they do so in compliance with the applicable rules of procedure. Consistent with the U.S. position, these information documents and advice shall not include or be treated as proposals. Member States alone retain the right to make proposals, either written or oral.
In addition, the Conference adopted a resolution (Resolution 109) establishing a working group of Council, open to all Member States that will review and consolidate as appropriate all provisions in the Convention and the Rules of Procedure of Council etc. dealing with observers in order to arrive at a clear understanding of their respective rights and obligations. The group will prepare a report to Council 2004, which will include specific recommendations with respect to Member State and Sector Member observers participation in the ITU, including meetings of Council. The resolution instructs Council to allow, on a provisional basis, Member State observers to address the Council when invited to do so, and to implement provisionally the recommendations of the working group regarding the admission of Sector Members as observers at meetings of the Council in accordance with conditions established by Council. Proposal Regarding Harmful Interference by Radio Stations
Among the proposals submitted to the Conference by Iran, the U.S. delegation had particular concern about a proposal related to harmful interference. Iran proposed an alternative procedure for solving cases of harmful interference (currently it is determined by the concerned Administrations) whereby the radio station causing interference shall "cease operation” until the matter is resolved. The U.S. had reason to believe that the motive behind the proposed change was not technical in nature but was an attempt to establish a basis for Iran to try to force the cessation of satellite broadcasts to Iraq. Mexico, France and others joined the U.S. in objecting to this proposal, which was then dropped by Iran.
Equitable Access to the Geostationary-Satellite Orbit
On the issue of equitable access to the geostationary-satellite orbit, the U.S. Delegation worked to protect U.S. equities. The U.S. reached agreement with its regional partners in CITEL and then in Plenary on updating a resolution (Resolution 86) on procedures for satellite network filings. Delegates agreed to remove the controversial language proposed by Colombia, and instead used language that directly quotes from Article 44 of the ITU Constitution.
Satellite Cost Recovery
The Conference handled the issue of cost recovery for satellite network filings largely outside of formal meetings. The U.S. Delegation reached agreement with key countries (e.g., Europeans, CITEL including Colombia) on text to revise an existing resolution (Resolution 88) to bring into force on August 1, 2003 the decision of WRC-2000 that calls for the cancellation of the publication of a satellite network filing for non-payment of cost recovery fees. This new policy should help reduce the satellite network filings backlog by weeding out at least some "paper satellites" without unduly antagonizing some U.S. regional partners in Latin America.
The revised resolution also instructed the Council to establish a working group, open to all Member States and Sector Members, to make recommendations to Council to, inter alia, extend the implementation of processing charges for satellite filings to include identifiable and auditable costs directly incurred in the processing of satellite notifications; and to clarify the meaning of the term “actual costs”.
Radio Regulations Board
The United States succeeded in its efforts to maintain the Radio Regulations Board (RRB) as a part-time board of 12 elected members (including James Carroll of the United States). The Conference agreed to give RRB Members "functional privileges and immunities" equivalent to those of ITU elected officials to protect them from lawsuits over decisions made in their official capacities. Consistent with the U.S. position, the Conference also adopted a new resolution that calls on the RRB to look at methods to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. The resolution calls for an increase in transparency in decision-making (e.g., including reasons with its decisions) and for the provision of logistical support to RRB members from developing countries. The resolution also calls upon the Secretary General to give the RRB the support and resources necessary to perform its functions appropriately.
Above 3000 GHz
The U.S. Delegation was successful in its efforts to remove the 3000 GHz limitation in applicability of the definition of "Radiocommunication" (No. 1005) contained in the Annex of ITU Convention. In addition to the U.S., 13 other CITEL administrations, 31 African nations and China put forward identical proposals. These administrations believe the arbitrary frequency limit constrains ITU World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs) from addressing spectrum-related issues above 3000 GHz. This restriction was inconsistent with the fact that ITU-R Study Groups have already adopted Recommendations addressing this spectrum range and technology has already been deployed by the United States and many other countries for both terrestrial and space applications.
Twenty-nine administrations, led by France, put forward a European Common Proposal for no change to this definition. The European proposal cited the possibility of repercussions in the domestic legislation of certain administrations. A drafting group, coordinated by the United States, met several times to work out a compromise. The resulting document was a draft resolution (Resolution 118) that, while leaving the definition unchanged, would allow the Radiocommunication Sector to have the flexibility to address issues above 3000 GHz and to consider regulatory proposals at future WRCs.
ITU Structure
The United States succeeded in stemming efforts by some countries for immediate and significant restructuring of the ITU. Believing that proponents for drastic change had not demonstrated a compelling need, the United States and other Member States moved the Conference toward a compromise solution of creating a Council Working Group to "review the functions of the three ITU Sectors in the light of the changes that have occurred in the operation The Council Working Group will operate consistent with the terms set forth in annex to the resolution that notes the importance of Sector Members, flexibility of the Sectors, and recognizes that both treaty and non-treaty work occur in the Union. Efforts by the Arab Group, Europe, Australia and others to break off non-treaty work for Sector Members only - and other major changes to the structure of the ITU - were referred to this group for further study. The Conference debated extensively who would be allowed to participate in the Group. Some delegations sought only Member State involvement and others wanted equal Member State and Sector Member participation. The final compromise language includes both Member States and Sector Members in discussions, but leaves it to Member States to make "conclusions and recommendations." The United States clarified on the floor that Member States may include Sector Members in their delegations to the Council Working Group. Following the action of the Plenipotentiary Conference, the U.S. has urged its private sector to consider carefully how to address European concerns regarding the ITU's structure. Should European participation and financial support diminish over the next four years, the ITU will face increasing challenges to its mission and operational base.
Internet Stability and Security
Over the course of the four weeks, the Conference considered a series of Internet-related proposals that focused on the management of Internet domain names and addresses, Internet security and multilingual domain names. After lengthy negotiations, delegates adopted three resolutions that highlight the increased interest on the part of governments with regard to the Internet. The U.S. delegation successfully advocated for the continued importance of private sector leadership in the Internet space and worked to ensure that ITU involvement remained limited to its core competencies.
The resolution on the management of Internet domain names and addresses stresses that, while the private sector is key to development and the core technical functioning of the Internet, governments are interested in the topic due to the critical importance that the Internet plays or is expected to play in their economic development and broader public policy. The major difference between the resolution adopted at this Conference and the previous version adopted in 1998 is that the revised resolution identifies specific limited activities in which the various ITU Sectors can engage to help contribute in a positive way to the relevant international discussions.
The network security resolution originally focused only on Internet security. It called for the creation of a new group within the ITU. The U.S. delegation successfully redrafted this resolution to focus on the security of information and communications networks and to confine the work to existing ITU Study Groups.
The resolution on multilingual domain names acknowledges the importance of this technological development to a majority of Member States. It goes on to recognize the role of the World Intellectual Property Organization on this topic and encourages cooperation between the ITU and In the case of all three resolutions, the U.S. delegation achieved results that will continue to ensure the stability and security of the Internet, reaffirm the importance of private sector leadership in the Internet and limit ITU involvement to its core competencies. Direct attempts to impose international charging arrangements on Internet services (ICAIS) or to expand the definition of basic telecommunications to include Internet services did not materialize.
International Telecommunication Regulations
The U.S. Delegation fully achieved its goals related to the review of the ITU's International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The ITRs are encompassed in a treaty-level instrument, adopted in 1988, that establishes guidelines related to international telecommunication The U.S. agreed to a review of the ITRs that could culminate in a World Conference on International Telecommunication to revise them. The U.S., however, insisted on two things: (1) that an open review process precede any Conference called to revise the ITRs; and (2) Observers Amendments to the Constitution and Convention
The Conference considered a number of proposals from Member States to amend the Constitution and Convention. Most of the proposals were driven by a perceived need for reform of the structure, institutions and working methods of the organization. Some of the proposals for amendment to the Constitution and Convention that were considered by the Conference are summarized below.
Transfer of General Provisions Regarding Conferences and Assemblies to a Separate Instrument
Several European states reiterated their proposal to the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference to transfer most of the provisions regarding conferences and assemblies, Chapter II of the Convention, to a separate instrument (specifically to the Rules of Procedure of Conferences and Other Meetings of the International Telecommunication Union). Member State proponents of this proposal argued that provisions of a procedural nature should be legally binding while at the same time flexible and upon amendment “capable of being rapidly implemented” and that the amendment and entry into force requirements of the Convention limited such flexibility. The Conference adopted amendments that upon entry into force will effect the transfer of these procedural provisions. Any subsequent amendments to instrument containing the transferred provisions will enter into force on the date of signature of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference that adopts them without the need for ratification, accession or approval. Politically sensitive provisions in Chapter II of the Convention, including those relating to admission to conferences and assemblies and credentials, remain in the Convention. The United States supported the adoption of these amendments. The Conference adopted several amendments relating to the Radio Regulations Board (RRB). The most significant of those amendments concerned lifting certain constraints on the “nationality” of candidates proposed by Member States for membership on the RRB and according functional privileges and immunities to members of the RRB. With respect to the nationality issue, the Conference adopted amendments to the Convention that removed the restriction on candidates for membership on the RRB sharing the same nationality as the Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General, Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Sector and the Director of the Telecommunication Development Sector. The restriction on sharing the same nationality as the Director of the Radiocommunication Bureau remains. Member States that proposed these amendments, including the United States, believed that the current nationality restrictions were too restrictive and that no harm to the Union would result from members of the RRB sharing the same nationality as those elected officials who are not directly responsible for radio regulation matters.
The other significant amendment concerning the RRB relates to privileges and immunities enjoyed by members of the RRB. Members of the RRB had on several occasions expressed concern that they might be subject to lawsuits for actions taken by them in the normal course of their duties. Member States agreed to accord members of the RRB functional privileges and immunities, which are equivalent to those that they would accord elected officials of the Union (e.g., immunity from suit and legal process relating to official acts). The requirement to accord functional privileges and immunities is subject to relevant domestic laws and regulations of each Member State. In accordance with this provision, and subject to ratification, the United States would accord members of the RRB functional privileges and immunities that are equivalent to those provided for under the International Organization Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. § 288 et seq. Adoption of these amendments should ensure that RRB members are able to perform their duties without fear of undue interference from one or more Member States.
Council
The Conference adopted several amendments concerning the meetings and duties of the Council. In regard to meetings of the Council, the Conference adopted amendments that grant Sector Members the right to be represented as observers at meetings of the Council subject to rules and conditions to be established by Council. The United States while supportive of this proposal in principle emphasized the need for Council to develop rules governing such observer participation in a manner that ensures that the Council continues to function effectively and efficiently.
The Conference also adopted amendments that in part clarify and in others enhance the Council’s duties with respect to the development, review and revision of the strategic plan. Included in such amendments are provisions that authorize Council, inter alia, to initiate the preparation of a new draft strategic plan; establish a schedule for the development of strategic and financial plans for the Union; review and approve annually the rolling four-year operational plans of each of the three sectors, and, taking into account the financial limits established by the Plenipotentiary Conference, review and, if necessary, update the strategic plan. The United States as a staunch proponent of strengthening the role of Council was generally supportive of these amendments.
Working Methods of the Sectors
Several Member States, primarily European countries, proposed amendments to the Convention that would have authorize the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) the power to redefine the organization and management of the Telecommunication Standardization Sector (T-Sector). Such Member States argued that such changes were necessary if the T-Sector was to “meet the requirements of those participating in the work of the [T-Sector].” Included in specific proposals for amendment, were provisions that would have given the WTSA authority to empower undefined “other groups” to operate, in certain instances, in a manner not currently provided for under the Constitution and Convention. For example, one of the proposals for amendment would have made it possible for the WTSA to give Sector Members operating in such groups voting rights on par with Member States. The United States and several other Member States opposed dramatic changes to the working methods of the T-Sector. However, in the spirit of compromise agreed to amendments that authorize the WTSA to establish “other groups”, appoint their chairmen and vice-chairmen and define their terms of reference. Moreover, the WTSA is not authorized to empower such groups to adopt questions or recommendations. In agreeing to this compromise, the Conference was able to avoid the adoption of more radical changes that the United States and others vigorously opposed. Similar amendments were adopted with respect to the Telecommunication Development Sector (D-Sector) and the Radiocommunication Sector (R-Sector).
Finances
The Conference adopted technical amendments to the Convention, which establish that Sector Members that are authorized to participate in regional conferences of the Union must share in defraying the expenses of such conferences. Such Sector Member contributions are to be made in accordance with relevant provisions of the Convention. Under the current Convention, only Member States of the region concerned and other Member States participating in such conferences are responsible for defraying the conference expenses.
Success at the Conference also may be measured by proposals for amendments that were not adopted. A substantial number of proposals for amendments that the United States opposed were rejected. The most significant of these include: proposals for amendments that would have authorized the RRB to issue decisions rather than recommendations in connection with its review of harmful interference cases; proposals for amendments to provide for a full-time RRB; proposals for amendments to transfer certain provisions from the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) to the Constitution and Convention, which would have made such provisions subject to review at each plenipotentiary conference; and proposals for amendments to change the manner in which reservations that are formulated at the time of signature of the Final Acts are handled at the time of deposit of instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession to the Constitution and Convention. These proposals, with the exception of the proposal concerning the ITRs raised significant legal and policy concerns for the United States. In all, the United States was pleased with the Conference action on proposals for amendments to the Constitution and Convention. Committee 6, Administration and Management, was chaired by Bruce Gracie of Canada. Financial matters and related issues including the Strategic Plan as well as human resource issues (staff matters) came under the purview of this committee. The financial issues associated with the serious budget shortfall, along with the related management problems confronting the ITU, were the dominant issues facing the Conference.
Establishment of the Upper Limit of the Amount of the Contributory Unit Provision No. 161D of the ITU Constitution requires that the provisional upper limit of the amount of the contributory unit be established during the first week of a Plenipotentiary Conference. The U.S. Delegation took a strong stand in the opening days of the Conference to maintain the upper limit of the contributory unit at the 2002 level of CHF (Swiss Francs) 315,000 for the next quadrennium (2004-2007). Other administrations pushed for an increase to CHF 330,000. France introduced into the discussion a compromise proposal, which would set the upper limit of the contributory unit at CHF 330,000 with an agreement that the actual charge for the first biennial budget (2004-05) would remain at CHF 315,000. Under the French proposal, Council would have the option to increase the charge per contributory unit to CHF 330,000 for the second biennial budget (2006-07). The United States and several other delegations intervened to state that the French proposal was in fact an increase in the contributory unit that would make it difficult for countries to decide on their level of contribution and could put pressure on some countries to lower their number of contributory units. A secret vote was called to decide among the three options – CHF 315,000, CHF 330,000 and the French proposal. Because the French proposal was the first to be considered and it garnered enough support (71 to 51 with 8 abstentions), the definitive upper limit of the contributory unit was set at CHF 330,000.
Establishment of the Level of Contribution
The Secretary General set Tuesday, October 15, as the deadline for Member States to announce the voluntary level of contribution that they would make to the Union. In the wake of the increase in the upper limit of the value of the contributory unit and the financial challenges facing a number of Member States, the announcements on contributory units generated significant concerns about the financial situation of the Union for the next four years. Based on the past levels of contribution, this Conference worked from the basis of 358 contributory units when developing the Financial Plan for the four-year period. Announcements made by administrations on October 15, however, resulted in a figure of approximately 336 contributory units – a difference of 22 contributory units. The most significant reductions in contributory units came from European countries.
Draft Financial Plan
The establishment of the Draft Financial Plan, the ITU Budget for the next four years, was a highly contested process. The spring meeting of Council and the Ad Hoc Group of Council that met in August were to work on a Draft Financial Plan for presentation to the Conference for its consideration. When the Council met in May, it set a provisional amount of the contributory unit at the current 315,000 CH. The lack of clarity in the proposed budget for 2002-2003 presented by the Secretary General along with the shortfall in projected revenue based on both zero nominal growth as well as zero real growth, resulted in the Council being unable to present a Draft Financial Plan to the Conference. The efforts to balance the income and expenditures were further complicated by the fact that the ITU was committed to move from three to six working languages during the upcoming quadrennium period.
When the Conference opened, a draft Report by the Council on the Draft Financial Plan was introduced which contained a range of options for balancing income and expenditures. The document set forth a list of efficiency and economy measures already instituted by the ITU, a list of still unfunded mandated activities, two tiers of options for reducing expenditures and options for increasing income. This information was incorporated in a DL document for review and consideration by Committee 6 in developing a draft Plan. The Draft Financial Plan submitted by the ITU General Secretariat was out of balance by over CHF 100,000.
It seems like the General Secretariat did not believe that the Member States would make the necessary hard decisions to cut programs to balance the income and expenditures and in the end would vote a substantial increase in the contributory unit. The U.S. Delegation exerted its leadership by submitting a proposal to make drastic cuts in the budget under consideration. The paper included a set of principles for placing the ITU on a solid financial basis along with proposed reductions in the budget of close to 65 million CHF. Because of the serious structural problems with the budget presented by the ITU, it was hard to tell if all of the proposed cuts by the United States were possible but they were moderate, realistic and helped to convince delegations that the Conference could make the cuts necessary to balance the Financial Plan. Among the cuts that the U.S. proposed that were adopted by the Conference were a reduction in consultants and a targeted 5% reduction in staff.
As indicated above, the U.S. proposal set a tone for the development of a Draft Financial Plan. The U.S. Delegation introduced the proposal by stating that the ITU is facing a serious shortfall in income and in order to balance the budget, there needed to be reductions of over 10% in program expenditures. The U.S. emphasized the need to return the ITU to sound financial footing and for the ITU to discontinue discretionary activities in order to allow the Union to preserve its core competencies. The U.S. proposal served as a basis for discussion with the UK, New Zealand and many other countries proposing additional across the board budget cuts. The serious downturn in the world economy that affected the economies of many developing countries resulted in broad support to hold line on the ITU budget and to cut funding across the board.
Because the ITU budget that contains the details behind the financial plan was so complex, lacked transparency and appeared to contain many errors, it became clear that resorting only to specific targeted cuts in the budget would not be feasible. The general unhappiness with the fact that the General Secretariat could not produce a understandable budget along with the sense that the Secretary-General was trying to protect initiatives that were not core competencies of the ITU, lead to a decision to develop a Financial Plan that balanced income and expenditures by making across the board percentage cuts in the budgets of the General Secretariat and the three Sectors. The General Secretariat was singled out for a higher percentage cut than each of the sectors. This approach was consistent with the U.S. proposal to increase the ability of the Sector Directors to manage their reduced funds effectively and to reduce the funding for the General Secretariat for discretionary activities. Secretary General Utsumi made a strong plea to the Conference not to approve the proposed Financial Plan on the basis that he could not run the ITU with the level of cuts targeted at the General Secretariat. The Financial Plan was overwhelmingly adopted over the Secretary General’s objections. A final variable in the Financial Plan – the level of contributions of private Sector Members – will remain unknown until any changes are announced in January 2003 and until the actual payments are received. While the Financial Plan adopted at the Conference relies on the assumption (as stipulated in the Union’s Convention) that Sector Member contributions will be at the same level as in the previous quadrennium, many delegates voiced the concern that the number of units pledged by Sector Members is very likely to decline given the state of the world economy and conditions in the telecommunications sector in particular and that a number of companies will have gone out of business.
No ITU Budget for 2004-2005
Normally, a financial plan for the quadrennium is adopted by a Plenipotentiary Conference along with the first biannual budget. It was with some considerable effort that the Conference adopted a balanced Financial Plan that established funding levels for the General Secretariat and the three Sectors. It was not possible to address the budget for 2004-2005 because of the drastic reductions in funding levels that became necessary as a result of reductions in income. It was left for the ITU staff to assess how the reductions in funding levels will be absorbed and present a draft budget for 2004-2005 for consideration at the Council meeting in May 2003. It is normal for Plenipotentiary Conferences to approve a number of new initiatives that require funding and to adopt resolutions regarding existing activities that have budgetary implications. This conference was no exception. However, given the budgetary crisis that the ITU is facing in which there is not enough funding for existing programs, it will be difficult to fund many of the new activities. Languages
This Conference concluded several years of gradual implementation of resolutions and decisions to expand use of all of the official UN languages. This effort began with the adoption of Resolution 62 at the 1994 ITU Kyoto Plenipotentiary and ended at this conference with the approval of Resolution 115 which establishes January 1, 2005 as the date by which all ITU work will be carried out in the six official and working languages of the Union on an equal footing. The U.S. resisted this resolution, having built support in recent ITU meetings for alternative language services such as the Universal Postal Union (UPU) model where each “language group” pays the actual costs of using its language. However, prior to the Plenipotentiary, allies that previously supported U.S. attempts to block language cost increases reported that their instructions had changed and they would not block any resolution to expand language services. This came about following demarches by a Spanish-speaking country strongly objecting to the UPU model, based on the mistaken belief that the UPU model provided free French and English service, while charging for Spanish, and threatening to marshal all the Spanish-speaking countries to vote against Council membership for any country supporting the UPU model. The U.S., in the absence of previous support, and aware that this resolution would overwhelmingly pass in a vote, obtained from ITU an estimate of language services costs based on ITU’s meeting schedule over the coming quadrennium in order to present the real cost increases to membership. Following this move, supporters of increasing language services agreed by consensus to the CHF 85 million cap on translation costs.
Improving the Management of the ITU
One of the primary objectives of the United States going into the Conference was to improve the management of the ITU by creating a greater role for Council in overseeing the finances and activities of the ITU. The U.S. proposals struck a response chord with many other delegations and became one of the primary accomplishments of the Conference. The Conference ended up creating seven new working groups of Council and strengthening the mandates of two existing working groups. Among the new working groups that were created were ones looking at the ITU structure, improvements to the management and functioning of the ITU, and improvement to the functioning of the Coordination Committee and the roles of the ITU elected officials. Table A provides a listing of the working groups along with their terms of reference. The poor performance of the Secretary-General and senior staff in responding to questions concerning the finances of the ITU and management of its activities led to the adoption of these initiatives by the Member States to take a more active role in overseeing the finances and management of the Union.
Of all the initiatives adopted by the Conference to increase the oversight of the ITU by Member States, the most significant was the creation of a Group of Specialists (GoS) to Review the Management of the Union. At a special session of Council convened on the last day of the Conference, a GoS comprised of five individuals, one from each administrative region was created. Richard Beaird of the United States (State/EB/CIP) was elected Chairman of the Group. The task of the GoS to review the management of the ITU is extremely complex and is to be completed as a matter of urgency so that its results can be implemented in the drafting of the 2004-2005 Budget to be submitted to the Council in May 2003. Among its far ranging tasks is to review the Union’s financial management including its budgetary system and processes with a view to improving the ITU’s effectiveness, efficiency, economy and budgetary transparency.
Strategic Plan and Linkage to Financial and Operational Planning
The 1992 Additional Plenipotentiary Conference approved a number of structural changes in the ITU to allow it to respond more effectively to the fast changing telecommunication environment. Evolutionary changes are still being introduced in the ITU to enable it to continue to be responsive to Member States and private sector members. One of the changes identified at the 1992 Conference was the need to establish a forum to discuss ITU strategies and policies. As a result, the Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference in 1994 adopted the first Strategic Plan for the Union for the period 1995-1999. The Minneapolis Conference adopted a Strategic Plan for the period 2000-2003 and this Conference adopted a Strategic Plan for the Union for the Period 2004-20007.
At the Plenipotentiary Conference in 1998 in Minneapolis, it was agreed that the process by which progress in achieving the objectives of the ITU is measured could be considerably enhanced by linking the strategic, financial and operational plans which set out the activities planned to be undertaken during any given year, and by instructing the Secretary-General and the Directors of the three Sectors to each prepare their consolidated plans reflecting the linkages between strategic, financial and operational planning for annual review by the Council. Unfortunately, the resolution that was approved requiring greater linkage was not implemented in a meaningful way.
At Marrakesh measures were adopted to ensure closer linkage and better planning. Three significant changes were made to the operational planning process.
Staff Matters Significant decisions were reached by the 2002 Council toward improving the Union's contract employment policy and toward performing a comprehensive review of the existing staff regulations. During the discussions on staff matters at the 2002 Council, complaints were raised by the representative of the ITU Staff Council that certain forms of discrimination currently practiced in the Union were having a detrimental impact on the effective and efficient functioning of the staff. In responding to these complaints from the staff, the United States indicated that it takes complaints of discrimination seriously and that the United States expected the ITU management to take immediate action to investigate these complaints and take appropriate action. In light of the above, the conclusion was reached during the U.S. preparations for the 2002 Plenipotentiary Conference that a revision was needed in Resolution 48 on Human Resources Management and Development adopted in Minneapolis. The U.S. objectives in achieving revisions to this resolution were to i) acknowledge the improvement in employment contract policy already accomplished by the 2002 Council; ii) encourage broad participation by the Union's members in the task of reviewing the staff regulations that had been initiated by the 2002 Council; and iii) instruct the Secretary-General to develop a code of conduct applicable to both the Union's management and staff. In the opening days of the conference in Marrakesh, the U.S. delegation was informed by the ITU Secretariat that a code of conduct, in the form of a service order, had in recent weeks been issued by the Secretary-General. The U.S. delegation considered this action by the Secretary- General to have satisfied one of the U.S. objectives in seeking revisions to Resolution 48; consequently, the U.S. submitted a revised proposal to the Conference containing only a reference to the new service order rather than a tasking to the Secretary General to develop a code of conduct. During the discussion of the U.S. proposal to revise Resolution 48, it became clear that the ITU Staff Council had developed support in the Algerian delegation to amend Resolution 48 with specific provisions that the Union staff considered beneficial to them. The objective of the ITU Staff Council's proposed revisions was to maintain some semblance of fairness in the achievement of staff reductions that because of the financial state of the Union were considered imminent. Based on guidance received from Washington, negotiations were completed with the Algerian delegation on amendments to Resolution 48, which were in turn adopted by the Conference. VI. CONCLUSION Overall, the U.S. delegation had an extraordinarily successful Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh. The United States satisfied virtually all of the objectives it set forth for the conference in a very difficult, post 9/11 international environment. Much of the credit goes to the hard work of the delegation members, both government and private sector. The U.S. was re-elected to the ITU Council by a record high vote, and James Carroll, a U.S. national, was re-elected to the Radio Regulations Board. On the question of whether to maintain the current structure of the ITU or separate the telecommunication standardization work of the ITU into a quasi-privatized body, the U.S. succeeded in stemming efforts for change by the Arab group, some European countries, and Australia. The U.S. and other countries argued that the case had not been made for such drastic action. The result was a compromise solution to create a Council Working Group to review the functions of the three Sectors "in light of the changes that have occurred in the operation and regulation of the telecommunication sector at the national level." The three Internet-related resolutions adopted by the Conference reflect the growing interest by other countries in this service, especially those from the developing world. However, the U.S. delegation was able to achieve results that will continue to ensure the stability and security of the Internet, reaffirms the importance of private sector leadership in the development and management of the Internet and that will continue to limit the ITU’s involvement to its core competencies. The Plenipotentiary Conference was able to make good progress on its agenda because the only pure political issue was resolved with the assistance of Morocco, which as the conference host served as the Conference Chairman. The Plenary adopted a resolution on rebuilding Palestinian telecommunications infrastructure, which was acceptable to both the Arab group and Israel. At the Marrakesh Plenipotentiary, the ITU's financial crisis was the pre-eminent issue. Faced with the reluctance of ITU leadership to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, the U.S. delegation took the initiative to put forward a paper that outlined several principles for placing the ITU on a firmer financial basis and proposed specific budget cuts. The U.S. was successful in obtaining support for this approach, and in convincing other member states to support cutting the budget. However, the increase in the upper limit of the contributory unit voted by the Conference helped to produce a decline of 22 contributory units, mostly from European countries. This result further aggravated the budget situation, forcing Plenipotentiary delegates to make a further round of cuts in the ITU budget to bring it back into balance. One of the U.S. objectives going into the conference was to improve the management of the ITU by giving a larger oversight role to the Council in the period between plenipotentiary conferences. A noteworthy development at the Conference was the establishment of a number of Working Groups of Council to review a series of management issues facing the Union. For example, Resolution 108 called for the establishment of a Working Group to examine the functioning of the Coordinating Committee, including the duties of the Deputy Secretary-General and other elected officials. Another resolution, 106, mandated the review of functions of the Sectors and a study of the current structure, working methods and procedures of the Sectors. Other Working Groups were established to focus on policy issues, such as review of the International Telecommunication Regulations, a review of provisions concerning the role of observers, and a study of the contribution system for Sector Members and Associates. The U.S. supported the adoption of these resolutions as a means of strengthening the oversight role of the Council. Appendix A. Washington, D.C. 20554 tel: 202 418-0437 Kathleen Abernathy Commissioner Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 tel: 202 418-2400 Fiona Alexander Telecommunications Policy Specialist Office of International Affairs NTIA Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 tel: 202 482-1890 Linda Armstrong Senior Legal Advisor Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 tel: 202 418-7490 Julie Barrie Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, D.C. 20554 tel: 202 418-2195 Karen Benjamin Deputy Executive Director Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-3248 Sarita Bhatt Telecommunications Policy Specialist Office of International Affairs NTIA Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 tel: 202 482-0298 Thomas Brennan Office of Specialized Agencies Bureau of International Organization Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-1526 Justin Connor Senior Attorney Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 tel: 202 418-1476 Thomas Cooney Foreign Affairs Officer Bureau of International Organization Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-6413 Robert Farr Information Systems Specialist Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-3105 Lauren Flejzor Program Analyst Bureau of International Organization Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-6414 Robin Frank Office of the General Counsel Department of Defense Washington, D.C. 20301-1600 tel: 703 695-3392 John Giusti Chief, International Spectrum and Communications Policy Branch Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 tel: 202 418-1407 Jack Gleason Senior Policy Advisor National Telecommunication and Information Administration Department of Commerce Washington DC 20230 tel: 202 482-1866 Marion Gordon Director, Telecommunication and Information Standards Department of State tel: 202 647-0197 Vernita Harris Telecommunications Policy Specialist NTIA Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 tel: 202 482-4696 JoAnn Howd Office of International Conferences Bureau of International Organization Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-1209 Anne Jillson Executive Director, U.S. Delegation International Communications and Information Policy Department of State tel: 202 647-5205 Elizabeth Kiingi Attorney-Adviser Office of the Legal Adviser Department of State tel: 202 647-0685 James Leaf Office of International Conferences Bureau of International Organization Affairs Department of State tel: 202 647-2511 William Luther Chief, International Radio Branch Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 tel: 202 418-0729 Doreen McGirr ITU-D Program Director International Communications and Information Policy Department of State tel: 202 647-0201 Steve Mirmina Senior Attorney National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546 tel: 202 358-2432 Christopher Murphy Senior Legal Advisor, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 tel: 202 418-2373 Karl Nebbia Deputy Associate Administrator National Telecommunications and Information Administration Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 tel: 202 482-0536 Kathryn O'Brien Division Chief, International Bureau Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 tel: 202 418-0439 Carmelo Rivera National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Department of Commerce 1325 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 tel: 301 713-1853 Norbert Schroeder Program Manager, Office of Spectrum Management National Telecommunications and Information Administration Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 tel: 202 482-6207 Sally Shipman Telecommunications Policy Adviser International Communications and Information Policy Department of State tel: 202 647-0050 Mary Townswick Economic Officer US Mission Geneva 11, Route de Pregny 1292 Chambesy - Geneva tel: (41-22) 749-4647 Kenneth Turner Office of Spectrum Management Policy Department of Defense 6000 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-6000 tel: 703 607-0735 Nancy Victory Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Department of Commerce Washington DC 20230 tel: 202 482 1840 Frank Williams Chairman, CPM Delegation International Communications and Information Policy Department of State tel: 202 647-0049 Badri Younes Director, Spectrum Management Department of Defense 6000 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-6000 tel: 703 607-0715 Private Sector Delegates Audrey Allison Director, Americas Regulatory Affairs The Boeing Company 1200 Wilson Boulevard Arlington VA 22209 tel: 703 465 3215 Matthew Botwin Senior Manager, Regulatory Affairs PanAmSat Corporation 1133 Connecticut Avenue NW - Suite 675 Washington, D.C. 20036 tel: 202 861-4355 fax: 202 861-4368 Marilyn Cade Director, Internet and E-Commerce AT&T 1120 20th NW Washington, D.C. 20036 tel: 202 457-2106 Sallye Clark Senior Director, International Affairs PanAmSat Corporation 1133 Connecticut Avenue NW - Suite 675 Washington, D.C. 20036 tel: 202 861-4350 Jane Coffin Resident Regulatory Advisor USAID Telecommunications Sector Reform Project National Regulatory Agency for Telecommunications 134 Stefan cel Mare Blvd - Room 405-407 Chisinau, MD-2021, Moldova tel: 373 2 211-174 Raymond Crowell Telecommunication Consultant Island View Drive Shelby, NC 28150-9717 tel:704 481 8929 Glenn Feldhake ITT Industries 1761 Business Center Drive Reston, VA 20190 tel: 703 858-4038 Ben C. Fisher Senior Counsel Shaw Pittman Washington, D.C. tel: 202 663-8154 Gary Fishman Technical Standards Director Lucent Technologies 101 Crawfords Corner Rd Holmdel, NJ 07733 tel: 732 949-3401 Michael Fitch Executive Director, Spectrum Management The Boeing Company 2260 E. Imperial Highway Los Angeles, CA 90009 tel: 310 364-7445 Karen Gielen Executive Director, International Regulatory Affairs Connection by BoeingSM P.O. Box 3707 - M/C 14/08 Seattle, Washington 98124 tel: 206 655-5170 Ann Ishee Group Manager Sprint 12120 Sunset Hills Rd, Second floor Reston, VA 20190 tel: 202 585-1917 William Jahn ASRC Aerospace Corporation 12021 Sunset Hill Rd., Suite 550 Reston, VA 20190 tel: 301 262-3023 Michael Kennedy Corporate Vice President Motorola 1350 I St. NW - Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 tel: 202 371-6551 Jason Leuck Director, International Affairs Telecommunications Industry Association 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW - Suite 350 Washington, DC 20004 tel: 202 383-1493 Leslie Martinkovics Director, International Regulatory Affairs Verizon Communications Inc. Washington, D.C. 20005 tel: 202 515-2433 Richard Parlow Telecommunications Consultant 5706 Bideford Court Bowie, MD 20715 tel: 301 464-0711 Arthur Reilly Cisco Systems Inc 14 Oak Knoll Road Ocean, NJ 07712 tel:732 493 3382 Warren Richards ITT Industries 1761 Business Center Drive Reston, VA 20190 tel: 703 438-3190 Walda Roseman, President & CEO CompassRose International Inc 888 17th Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 tel:202 833 2390 Eric Rosenberg Director, Spectrum and Regulatory Affairs Iridium Satellite LLC 1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1000 Arlington VA 22209 tel:703 465-1026 Jonathan Siverling Technical Relations Specialist American Radio Relay League 3545 Chain Bridge Rd. Suite 209 Fairfax, VA 22030 tel: 703 934-2066 Martin Sullivan Director, Standards Development Telcordia Technologies Room 2X439 Red Bank, NJ 07701 tel: 732 758-2233 Jennifer Warren Senior Director, Trade & Regulatory Affairs Lockheed Martin 1725 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Suite 403 Arlington, VA 22202 tel: 703 413-5970 Lawrence Williams Senior Vice President, Business Development ICO Global Communications 1133 21st Street NW - 8th floor Washington, D.C. 20036 tel: 202 721-0966 Richard Wright Deputy Manager ASRC Aerospace Corp. 12021 Sunset Hills Rd. Suite 330 Reston, VA 20190 tel: 571 203-1341 Appendix C. Working Groups Established by the Plenipotentiary Conference
|
 | |||
|
