Radiocommunication Assembly, Istanbul 1-5 May 2000

Delegates Report

Summary

A busy Assembly, which was effectively chaired by Mr George (Germany). The Assembly was hosted by Turkey in a new conference centre with excellent facilities in the centre of Istanbul.

Difficult issues were chairmanships, and the alternative approval procedure for Recommendations of the Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R). Most of the time was spent on ITU-R Resolutions, with all the ITU-R Recommendations being approved without change except for a minor change in one (see below).

There was no decision on the date of the next Assembly. This will depend on the date of the next WRC. If it is June 2003 then the Assembly is likely to be associated with it. If it is September 2003 then the Assembly might be associated with CPM-2 in February 2003 (subsequently, the ITU Council decided that, pending final confirmation, planning for the next RA and WRC should proceed on the basis of June 2003 dates).

The UK brief proved very useful. The delegation was relatively small (many who had registered did not attend) but was just about able to cover all the main activities including the editorial committee.

Chairmanships of ITU-R Groups

This issue was complicated by both Canada (Rawat) and Russia (Minkin) running for SG9 chair. Canada later extended the options for Rawat to SG8 and CPM. There were a total of 10 chairmanships to elect: 7 SGs; CPM; RAG; and Special Committee. Europe (including Russia) had candidates for five of these posts: SGs 8, 9, 10, CPM, and SC. There was no candidate for RAG.

At a CEPT coordination meeting it was decided that the priority was SG8, (Van Diepenbeek, The Netherlands), and second priority was CPM (George, Germany).

ITU-R Recommendations

The only ITU-R Recommendation modified was that on essential requirements of geostationary GMPCS mobile earth stations. The notes 8 and 10 to Tables 2A and 2B respectively were amended to read:

The power limits... require further study. This study is important to determine whether less stringent limits may enhance spectrum efficiency and utilisation immediately above 1626.5MHz.

This was a compromise agreed with US who proposed deleting any suggestion that the objective was less stringent limits.

UK Proposals

The F.bwa Recommendation was approved on condition that the editorial amendments suggested by the SG9 Chairman (derived from the 8A/9B meeting) were made, as proposed by the UK document. (This document had the term "chairman" changed to "chairperson" by the Secretariat. UK pointed out that since the Plenipotentiary Conference had recognised the term "Chairman" as gender neutral, there was no justification for this change. The Chairman confirmed that the Secretariat should not make such amendments to members' documents.)

The new Broadcasting SG (SG6) was established with the following scope statement based on the UK proposal and a US proposal:

Broadcasting makes use of point-to-everywhere information delivery to widely available consumer receivers. When return channel capacity is required (e.g. for access control, interactivity, etc.), broadcasting typically uses an asymmetrical distribution infrastructure that allows high capacity information delivery to the public with lower capacity return link to the service provider. The production and distribution of programs (vision, sound, multimedia, data, etc.) may employ contribution circuits among studios, information gathering circuits (ENG, SNG, etc.), primary distribution to delivery nodes, and secondary distribution to consumers.

The Study Group, recognizing that radiocommunication broadcasting extends from the production of programmes to their delivery to the general public, as detailed above, studies those aspects related to production and radiocommunication, including the international exchange of programs as well as the overall quality of service.

Canada decided not to continue with their proposal for a joint ITU-R/ITU-T group on IMT-2000. However, the UK document was used as the basis for a new Resolution on the role of ITU in IMT-2000 (Resolution ITU-R 50) which effectively blocks any recurrence of the Canadian proposal.

Working Procedures

There were two changes to Resolution ITU-R 1 which caused some lengthy negotiation involving the US.

The US proposed a change to the definition of a Recommendation to remove the need to carry out an evaluation of different systems in the same Recommendation. This was opposed by France and The Netherlands. The result was an amendment so that where Recommendations provide information on various systems relating to one application, they should be based on criteria to be determined within the SG, and should include, where possible, an evaluation of the recommended systems.

The other amendment which caused strong objection from US was based on a UK initiative (included in the BR proposed amendments to Resolution 1) to allow for more draft Recommendations to be passed directly to the Radio Assembly in cases where there is an objection in their adoption by the SG by correspondence. The result is an amendment to cover all draft Recommendations (not just C1 category), and all such cases will be passed to the Assembly "unless there is sufficient evidence that the technical objection has already been adequately discussed in the SG". This should help to speed up the approval of contentious Recommendations.

Alternative Approval Procedure

This was a very difficult issue with the US and Arab countries resisting any change. The result is embodied in two Resolutions: ITU-R 5 and 45. Resolution 5 asks SGs to identify Questions suitable for AAP. This needs to be agreed unopposed by correspondence. Resulting draft Recommendations will, if unanimously agreed, be circulated to SG participants for adoption by correspondence. If there is no objection to the adoption of the Recommendation it will be considered approved.

This has not significantly increased the rights of Sector Members, but it does speed up the approval process. Many details still need to be worked out and the next step will be to change the requirement for unopposed approval, to allow approval if there are no more than a certain number of objections, or a percentage of responses in favour.

UK Delegation