Where we are with WCIT-12

A week of intense debate

Since Issue No. 2 of the WCIT-12 Highlights was released on Wednesday 5 December, lots of negotiations have been taking place at several levels of WCIT-12 to review and update the now 24-year old International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).

The five committees of the conference are hard at work as week one ends. The Steering Committee is seeing to it that the conference runs smoothly. The Credentials Committee is verifying that the credentials of delegations are in order. The Budget Control Committee is keeping an eye on expenditure and on the financial implications which may arise as a result of the decisions to be taken at this conference. The Editorial Committee is refining the language of all modified and new treaty texts. And finally, the Review Committee (Committee 5) is carrying out the substantive work (see “Structure of the conference”). This issue of the WCIT-12 Highlights covers some of the work done between 5 and 7 December.

News from Friday's plenary

Recognized operating agencies versus operating agencies
What do these terms mean, and what is at stake?

As mandated by the first plenary, the Chairman of the Conference, Mohamed Nasser Al-Ghanim, has been conducting informal discussions regarding the issue of the use of the terms “Operating Agency” (OA) and “Recognized Operating Agency” (ROA). Discussions so far have yielded a number of proposals detailed in a “Note” (DT/30) from the Chairman to the plenary on 7 December. But first, what do these terms mean?     
 
According to No. 1007 of the ITU Constitution an Operating Agency is: “Any individual, company, corporation or governmental agency which operates a telecommunication installation intended for an international telecommunication service or capable of causing harmful interference with such a service.”
 
And according to Provision No. 1008 a Recognized Operating Agency is: “Any operating agency, as defined above, which operates a public correspondence or broadcasting service and upon which the obligations provided for in Article 6 of this Constitution are imposed by the Member State in whose territory the head office of the agency is situated, or by the Member State which has authorized this operating agency to establish and operate a telecommunication service on its territory.”

Some of the positions

On one hand are Member States, who prefer to restrict the scope of the ITRs to ROAs, “and this, in particular, because historically the ITRs and its predecessors applied only to regulated telecommunications operators, and it would not be appropriate to expand their scope, and in particular they should not apply to private networks,” according to DT/30.
 
On the other hand are Member States, who prefer to apply the ITRs to OAs, “and this because the ITRs need to be adapted to the current reality, where either there are no ROAs at all (if one takes the view that an ROA is only an OA that is explicitly licensed) or all OAs are ROAs (if one takes the view that implicit licensing is an authorization in the sense of No. 1008 of the Constitution). These countries take the view that the term ROA is no longer relevant and must be replaced by OA” – a view stated in DT/30.
 
The Chairman’s Note (DT/30) then goes on to highlight another position, where one region has taken the view that “the preferable term to use is ‘administration/operating agency’ so as to include explicitly both the governmental department that represents the Member State at ITU, and operators.”
 
The Chairman of the Conference had proposed in his ad hoc group that perhaps the way forward could be to use the concept of the authorized OAs as referred to in No. 38 of the Constitution. This, as he had explained, would have the advantage of not creating a discrepancy between the Constitution and the ITRs.
 
Some countries supported the proposed compromise approach.  Others did not support it.
 
According to one region, any use of the term OA would be too broad. A country from that region  stated that if the term “Operating Agency” were to be used, the ITRs would address a wide range of entities and operations that include, for example, private network operators, private leased-line networks of commercial providers, government agencies (including military and national space agencies’ networks and installations), and amateur radio operators.
 
The Chairman of the Conference had invited delegates to contribute to developing a common understanding on what should be excluded. One country stated that a reference could be added to No. 1004 of the Constitution. Another country stated that military networks, for example, could be excluded in the light of Article 48 of the Constitution.
 
Presenting his Note to the plenary on Friday, the Chairman of the Conference said that another ad hoc meeting was scheduled for Monday, 10 December to continue the discussion.
 

A new development on the “universal human rights” issue

When considering the agenda of Friday’s plenary, the Chairman of the Conference, at the request of a group of Member States, presented Document 44 which contained a proposal to add a clause to the Preamble of the ITRs. The proposed clause reads: “While implementing these Regulations Member States shall take into account their international obligations in relation to universal human rights.”
 
Document 44 is co-authored by several countries, who believe that the proposed “addition needs to be considered by Member States in the implementation of the ITRs as a general principle.” The document also states that the “addition would ensure that the provision of protection of human rights in general will be respected by ITU members in the implementation of the ITRs.”
 
There was opposition to the request, on the grounds that the matter had already been settled at an earlier plenary, where it had been unanimously agreed that no language needed to be added to the ITRs regarding respect for human rights, because the respect of those rights was imposed by instruments of a higher level than the ITRs, in particular the ITU Constitution and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (see Issue No. 2 WCIT-12 Highlights).
 
ITU Secretary-General, Dr Hamadoun I. Touré called for unity and vision and asked for the document to be included on the agenda. Discussion on the request was deferred until Monday’s plenary, when it will be considered along with the “First reading” of the Preamble that had been submitted to the Editorial Committee for refinement (see Issue No. 2 WCIT-12 Highlights).

Conference approves resolution to boost broadband in landlocked developing countries and small island developing States

At its plenary on 7 December, the conference approved a resolution on “Special measures for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing States (SIDSs) for access to international optical fibre networks”. The new resolution was unanimously endorsed.

Given that many landlocked and transit developing countries are in Africa, the resolution recalls the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) – an initiative intended to boost economic cooperation and development at regional level. It notes that access to international optical fibre networks for LLDCs and the laying of optical fibre across transit countries are not indicated in the infrastructure development and maintenance priorities in the Almaty Programme of Action.
 
The planning and laying of international optical fibre calls for close cooperation between LLDCs and transit countries and capital investments are required. Aware of this, the resolution “instructs the Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau to study the special situation of telecommunication/ICT services in the LLDCs and SIDSs, taking into account the importance of access to international fibre-optic networks at reasonable costs”. He is to report to the ITU Council on measures taken to provide this assistance. These countries should also be assisted to develop their plans, along with practical guidelines and criteria to govern and promote sustainable regional, subregional, multilateral, and bilateral projects.

The Secretary-General will bring this resolution to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Council is invited to take appropriate measures to ensure that ITU continues to collaborate actively in the development of telecommunication/ICT services in LLDCs and SIDSs.
 
Member States, Sector Members, Associates and Academia are invited to continue supporting the work of ITU’s Telecommunication Development Sector in studies pertaining to the situation of telecommunication/ICT services in the LDCs, LLDCs and SIDSs, and countries with economies in transition (see related story in Issue No. 2 of the WCIT-12 Highlights).

Other business

During any other business, one country requested to submit new multiregional proposals to the Chairman of the Conference (after the plenary), to allow for consultations over the weekend, and publish and discuss in plenary on Monday. The proposal was supported by some Member States.
 
One country reminded the Chairman of the Conference that proposals are due four months ahead of a conference. But on a point of procedure, another country said “it is the conference itself that decides deadlines for the submission of proposals.” Then a third country stated that “there are no surprises in the multiregional proposals – it is a compromise document (with consolidated positions)”. The aim of the document, according to its proponents, was to help speed up the work of the conference.
 
Dr Touré encouraged the conference to see the positive side, to see the glass half full, and to look at the multiregional proposals. Closing the plenary, the Chairman reminded all participants to seek consensus during the weekend’s work.

In brief

Internet: On the Internet front (Article 3A), the Chairman of the Conference said that he was carrying out informal consultations. 

Energy efficiency: Four countries reiterated their earlier position that the subject should not be in the ITRs because it duplicates other efforts already being made (see Issue No. 2 WCIT-12 Highlights). Other countries want to include text in ITRs. A Resolution (at least) might be a possible compromise. Meanwhile, DT/33, presented to the plenary, was referred back to its ad hoc group.
 
Accessibility: Discussion focused on whether the text should be in articles of the ITRs or in the form of a Resolution. Here again, the document presented to the plenary (DT/29) was sent back to its ad hoc group.
 
Dissemination of information (Article 8): There was an editorial discussion and DT/32, presented to the plenary, was sent back to its ad hoc group.
 

Progress report from Committee 5

During the plenary on Friday, 7 December, the Chairman of Committee 5, Joshua Peprah, presented his report on where things stood. This committee had just listened to updates from its working groups. These updates are reflected below.
 

Charging and accounting
Proposed new provisions for Article 6 (Charging and Accounting) were addressed by Working Group 5-1 on 5 December, with India tasked to consolidate the various proposals made under general economic and policy issues. An ad hoc group, chaired by Brazil, was also created to look into the proposed revisions for international telecommunication connections. The 5 December meeting ended prematurely, due to technical difficulties in accessing documents on the ITU website. On 6 December, Working Group 5-1 met again and made some progress in a number of areas:

• There was general agreement that Appendix 2 on maritime telecommunications should be retained, with some modifications, and an ad hoc group chaired by Greece was created to finalize the text.
  
• An additional ad hoc group was created to look into the new proposed revisions on roaming and to try to consolidate the various proposals for further consideration at the level of the working group.
  
• There was general agreement to leave unchanged provision 45 on taxation. Some countries from one region requested time to make consultations and review the agreement for general text and report back to the Working Group.
  

Article 9 (Special Arrangements) has been discussed at length, with no consensus so far. Authors of the various proposals were requested to get together to consolidate them and bring them back to Committee 5. The Steering Committee has allocated more time to Working Group 5-1 so that it can complete its assignment. Presenting her report to Committee 5 on Friday morning, 7 December, the Chairman of Working Group 5-1 Bernadette Lewis of Trinidad and Tobago said: “The positions are varied and divergent. If the issues remain unresolved by Monday, 10 December, they will have to be referred to Committee 5.”
 
The Ad hoc Group on Article 6, chaired by Caroline Greenway of Australia, met on Thursday evening, 6 December, to discuss an approach for dealing with the existing Article 6. The following principles were drawn up on the basis of an earlier intervention from Australia (see section entitled “Flashback to debates in Committee 5”) at the suggestion of the Committee 5 Chairman:

•  Text that reflects high-level and flexible principles on charging and accounting arrangements, without prescribing a particular course of action for national regulatory bodies;
  
•  Text that permits the charging and accounting provisions of Article 6 and/or Appendix 1 to be superseded by commercial arrangements or special arrangements.
  

There was support, but no consensus on those principles. So the group moved on to consider a compilation of proposals for modification or suppression of the existing provisions of Article 6. The compilation (Document DL/13), had been prepared by the ITU secretariat.
 
Delegates who supported maintaining the provisions were asked to indicate whether they could accept those provisions moving elsewhere, either to Appendix 1, to an annex, or potentially to a WCIT recommendation.
 
Among some of the countries or regions who had proposed modifications, there was an indication of willingness to merge some of their proposals.
 
Considering that some Member States and regions have not indicated that they have shifted from their preferred position for suppression, that issue remains unresolved.
 
One country voiced concern over the proliferation of ad hoc groups, and proposed that the Ad hoc Group on Article 6 be the sole group to deal with that article and that it be co-chaired by Australia and India, and report directly to Committee 5. It would consider old and new provisions of Article 6 (instead of separately, as initially decided). The proposal was widely supported, with other countries also voicing concern over the growing number of ad hoc groups.
 
In Working Group 5-2, chaired by Fabio Bigi, there is possible consensus on provisions on quality of service, the provision of facilities, and calling line identification. Also, the Ad hoc group chaired by the United Kingdom on the misuse of numbering resources has now completed its work and there is some consensus from the group, although the output document still has a few square brackets – meaning further discussion will take place prior to adoption.
 
Discussion on other issues has been less conclusive – notably on routing, where there is a divergence of opinion. Member States were finally asked to sleep on it and return to it later with fresh thoughts/opinions. Discussions concerning security have begun, with all positions now clearly outlined – again, there is a divergence of opinion. Further clarification will be sought on a way forward at the next meeting of Working Group 5-2, which still has many issues to be discussed, including spam.
 
Attention was drawn to the potential difficulty of resolving security issues, given their complexity. Attention was also drawn on the need to clarify the status of the proposals on non-discriminatory access to Internet within Committee 5.
 
Delegates were reminded that non-discriminatory access to Internet (DT25) should be discussed in Committee 5. Some suggested that it was already being discussed by an ad hoc group of the plenary, but it was agreed that the matter should be discussed in Committee 5.
 
It is a busy weekend especially for the working groups and ad hoc groups of Committee 5.

Flashback to debates in Committee 5

Different regions, different situations

Two distinct camps have emerged on the issue of the accounting rate system under Article 6 of the ITRs. Proponents for deletion of text in this article argue that in a commercial environment the system is obsolete. Those proposing modification of text say that accounting rates are still the basis for some settlement.
 
Initial discussion took place in Working Group 5-1. As consensus was not reached, the Working Group brought the matter to its parent Committee to seek advice on a way forward. Further discussion then took place in Committee 5 itself on 5 December, with strong support expressed by one region for modification of Article 6.
 
Ruling on the matter, following agreement that an ad hoc group would be set up, the Chairman of Committee 5 said: “There are two strong schools of thought on this. But we really must move towards some consensus because 24 years ago, several members that are here now, had no input to what was set up then. Yet, a large majority of such countries are consuming telecommunication and ICT services and products. And whilst there has been a lot of improvement in some parts of the world, in others, some countries are dealing with issues that cannot be ignored.”
 
One country highlighted its situation with statistics from a recent report on international telecommunication services. The report says that only 2 per cent of that country’s international traffic is settled according to accounting rates. This was one of the reasons the country was putting forward a proposal to delete one of the accounting provisions of Article 6 and replace it with a provision that would call for commercial agreements instead. “That is where we see the trend, and other countries are also seeing that trend,” that country said.
 
Another country, speaking on behalf of the region it hails from explained the regional position in these words: “In our view, there are no contradictory positions, because the documents we are reviewing do contain norms which satisfy both the views of those who need Article 6, and the views of those who no longer do, because this article has provisions on special agreements, which we are referring to here as commercial agreements. But in essence, these are agreements, and if they exist, then we are guided by their norms.”
 
A third country stated that it considers charging and accounting arrangements between operators to be a commercial matter in the current international telecommunication market. In that country’s view, the rates set out in the current ITRs were adopted when the market comprised mostly State-owned telecommunication providers exchanging circuit-switched minutes. It considers this system no longer relevant in the current competitive international telecommunication market, and so supports deleting most provisions on charging and accounting. “We consider it inappropriate to mandate matters subject to commercial arrangements in a binding multilateral treaty,” it also said.
 
The general tariff principles recommendations establish guidelines on topics relating to charging and accounting. That country therefore considers that these provisions need not be duplicated in the ITRs.
 
That country then said it could accept proposals for revising Article 6 if they reflected high level and flexible principles on charging and accounting arrangements without prescribing a particular course of action for regulatory bodies, or if they permitted provisions on charging and accounting to be superseded by commercial or special arrangements. The country also added it could support transferring some of the existing provisions of Article 6 to Appendix 1, provided the application of these provisions remained flexible and at the discretion of Member States.
   
A fourth country spoke in favour of maintaining Article 6 and Appendix 1, saying that they contain provisions which constitute a basis for negotiation which is sufficiently transparent for its operators. Backing this view, another country from the same region said “Whatever technological developments unfold, we feel the article could be modified by consultation. But we think it should be maintained because it is relevant and it enables us to establish accounting for the exchange of international traffic.”
 
A fifth country spoke on behalf of its region, stating that the regional proposal is to suppress Article 6 because its provisions are not adequate for the competitive landscape of an international telecommunication market. In addition, the region proposed to add a new provision which states: “Subject to applicable national law, the terms and conditions between recognized operating agencies for the provision of international telecommunication services shall be subject to commercial agreement.”

Don't throw out the old with the new – a dual highway analogy

Speaking as Vice-Chairman of Committee 5, Australia’s Bob Horton described the current situation as a dual highway – “a highway where in some cases we have heard that there are many countries that need to negotiate with each other using the charging and accounting regime, which has been in place for 24 years. And there is still a definite need for that, and also a legitimate requirement for it within the Constitution and the Convention.
 
On the other hand, we have seen an enormous growth of commercial arrangements which are taking place these days. And that is the second lane of the highway.
 
Now, a third group of relationships is where the countries with traditional practices need to negotiate with the modern agencies. So there is a hybrid situation there.
 
So if we recognize that – and are sensitive to both commercial and traditional charging arrangements – then if we make provision for that in a bifurcated way, without one impeding the other, it's the high-level sort of principle we should put in place. So that is maybe the compromise that we need to head towards. We don't throw out the old with the new.
 
In this way, there will be no more accidents on the road; if we recognize that it is a dual highway and we can cross over at certain points when we're ready.”
 
Agreeing with Mr Horton’s analysis, the Chairman of Committee 5 added ”We should find a way to work together, so that the weakest link in the international telecommunication network does not bring everything crashing down, and that everybody is sufficiently satisfied so that smooth international telecommunication can continue.”
 
A decision was then taken to set up an ad hoc group, chaired by Australia, to examine the positions that had been presented. The ad hoc group is open to all those who feel strongly about the issue, to make their views known and also “educate some of the people who may not be aware of what is happening in other parts of the world,” as the Chairman of Committee 5 put it.
     
One country, announcing that it would participate in the group, stressed that “rather than prescriptive regulations, we need a regulatory environment that promotes competition, development, entrepreneurship and innovation, since this would benefit consumers worldwide.”
   
A second country stated that Article 6 dealt with the important subject of accounting and settlement principles and that for settlement of accounts it is still basically being followed. “So though it is not used much, I would suggest keeping it in some part of the ITRs,” that country said.
 
A third country spoke on behalf of its region, saying that they were not in favour of suppression of Article 6 at the moment, but fully understood the technological changes occurring in the international market. A fourth country, backing this position called for consensus in order to obtain an outcome that is beneficial to all.
     
A fifth country, speaking as the outgoing Vice-Chairman of ITU-T Study Group 3, stated: “We have had input from several Member States in respect of the contents of Article 6 and Appendix 1. That symbolizes the importance of international matters in even today's telecommunication environment at the international level. Therefore, we propose that these articles be maintained.”
 
A sixth country holds the view that Article 6 is about three issues: prices, accounting and taxation “In our proposal, we focus on costs and prices, because we consulted our private sector and they are currently not using the accounting provisions. However, we have to take into consideration what other countries have stated here, in that they do still use the accounting provisions.”

Committee 3
The first meeting of Committee 3 took place on Wednesday, 5 December. It is chaired by Bruce Gracie, Canada, with as Vice-Chairmen Mohamed Ben Amor, Tunisia and Nurzat Boljobekova, Kyrgyzstan.  Alassane Ba, Chief, Financial Resources Management Department, ITU, is the Secretary.
 
The Chairman congratulated the Government of the United Arab Emirates for their efforts, facilities and support provided before and during the conference. The Chairman also emphasized the importance of any financial implications which may arise following decisions made throughout the conference.
 
The second meeting of Committee 3 shall be held on Monday, 10 December, when an update of the expenses of the conference will be provided.