• One school of thought stresses that the scope of WCIT-12 should not be limited to the review of the provisions of the existing ITRs, but should also include consideration of new and emerging issues. Another school of thought argues that the scope of WCIT-12 should be limited to the review of existing provisions only.
  
  
• Some propose that before considering detailed individual issues for inclusion in a revised ITR, there should be fresh consideration of their purpose and scope and identify a set of principles.  Others were of the view that this proposal was inconsistent with items 1 to 5 of the group’s Terms of Reference, would lead to unnecessary delays and could undermine previous work.
  
  

To correct or not Council Resolution 1312
The United States then presented Document C10/41 calling for a correction of Resolution 1312. The delegation said that this resolution “contains certain procedural irregularities that must be corrected to bring it into conformity with established ITU procedures and practices”.  They explained that “it is a well settled ITU practice that Working Groups established by the ITU Council report their outcomes to the ITU Council”.  Accordingly, the delegation said, the text of Resolution 1312 in resolves 3, 4 and 5 should be changed to reflect that Council Working Group on WCIT-12 should report to Council as the entity that created it, and not directly to PP-10.

This view was supported mainly by the Philippines, which presented its arguments in Document C10/60. But on the whole, the Philippines said they still see “the need for an International Telecommunication Regulations and the relevance of the purpose behind the Melbourne Treaty in achieving today’s goal of building one global village, a global information society in a fast-changing telecommunication/ICT environment”. But the question is “must the ITR be a treaty or not?”, the delegation said, adding that the  Philippines is currently deliberating on this issue. Meanwhile, they were interested in hearing the views from the membership.

For the Russian Federation, and many other countries, Council Resolution 1312 was adopted in full compliance with the ITU Constitution and Convention. The delegation went on to propose that the working group should, to a large extent, “be a prototype based on the ITU-R Conference Preparatory Meeting in terms of preparing the technical and regulatory bases for the future WCIT‑12”. Generally, the Russian Federation considers that the main task facing WCIT-12 in reviewing the ITRs is to develop a regulatory instrument that is binding. This, the delegation argued, makes WCIT-12 fundamentally different from other meetings and conferences whose decisions are not binding on all ITU Member States. “Therefore, the content of the regulations in question will have a significantly greater impact than, for example, any technical document adopted in the study groups. Accordingly, the content of the ITRs must be issues that are key to current and future telecommunication technologies and services on a global scale, the Russian Federation explained in its Document C10/59.

Comments from the floor
Australia supported corrections to Resolution 1312 saying that “we do not believe that a Council working group is sufficient – additional consideration needs to be given to this process”. Turkey drew attention to the scope of WCIT-12 in these words: “The telecommunication environment has significantly evolved, including the continued development of next-generation networks and IP-enabled infrastructure and applications, offering opportunities and challenges for everyone and ITU. In order to provide an enabling environment, ITU should discuss new and emerging issues and respond to the changing environment.”
 
France, speaking on behalf of the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT), and referring to the proposals in Document C10/32 said: “We entirely agree that WCIT-12 be held in November 2012 in conjunction with WTSA, for five days. We also agree with the proposed agenda. As to the existing Council working group, we are in favour of it continuing its work with the same leadership”.
 
Canada believes that Resolution 1312 needs to be modified along the lines proposed by the United States. The delegation also expressed concern about the number and timing of meetings. As for the preparatory process, Canada said that this needs to be considered by PP-10. The delegation added that “There is very little experience in Canada in participating in ITRs – the conference took place 20 years ago and everyone involved is long-retired and we are having some difficulty getting a grip on some of the issues.” The delegation then called for a broad preparatory process and broad participation, “if we are to consider new and emerging issues” and expressed support for what it described as “the concept of the agenda” in Document C10/32.

 
The importance of WCIT-12 for ITU
Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré underlined the importance of WCIT-12 for ITU. Dr Touré said that ITU is fortunate that the Plenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis in 1998 decided to organize the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and that it initiated discussions on ITRs. The Secretary-General said he drew a parallel between these events, because “we realized the changes in the world – competition and convergence”, being among the driving forces.
 
At the time the Maitland Commission released its report “The Missing Link” in 1985, the goal was to bring every citizen within 5 km of a telephone. In 1988, we realized we were failing to achieve this goal, Dr Touré explained. “Now we are talking about a knowledge society. In 1988 – international telecommunication traffic was priced according to time, distance and location, but today, these are no longer relevant. At the time, voice was the predominant factor”, Dr Touré noted, adding that now data dominates, carrying video and voice.
 
“If we don’t do something, we will have a break in the system. The same breakage that happened in the financial system could come into our industry... The ITRs will be the next Doha round for us,” Dr Touré commented, likening the importance of these regulations with the WTO agreement. “The ITRs provide the basis and the implicit basis for commercially-negotiated contracts. They have facilitated rapid growth in international traffic through a period of rapid liberalization,” he noted. Many countries use ITRs internationally and at the national level. So it is not an issue of developing countries versus developed countries, he underlined.
 
“Some members argue that ITRs are no longer necessary. But the reality is that international  telecommunication and ICT services are still in need of a global framework within which they can operate. Telecommunications have been included in WTO and regional trade facilitation agreements. If we don’t do something at the ITU level, we will be irrelevant. If we do something, we can take a leadership role. If we don’t do something, there will no longer be investment in telecommunications. Content developers are the ones getting all the revenues – there is no balance enabling operators to get a share and there will be a crisis,” Dr Touré cautioned.
 
Calling on the Council to decide on the duration, dates, venue, and agenda for WCIT-12 to speed up the preparatory process, Dr Touré underlined the need to hear from the private sector – operators, service providers, social networking companies – in order to achieve tangible results. “This will be the greatest change for ITU – for 25 years, we have not changed the rules of exchange, while everything else has changed. The financial crisis has shown us that there is a need for some regulation, that market forces do not work all the time – we should be a catalyst for a process where everybody is a winner. So how do we proceed in the ITRs, making everyone happy? WRC was a great success and everyone came out a winner – I believe we can repeat the same scenario for the ITRs,” Dr Touré stated.
 
The United States proposed that pages 1 and 2 of Document C10/32 contain the essential elements of what should be put forward to PP-10. “An agenda is found in Section 2.2, and we can support this agenda. The Council is being asked to recommend a preparatory process. There are different views on how this process should go forward – but this is a treaty, all participants should be included. We can agree with the schedule of meetings on page 2,” the councillor suggested. He also expressed support for the holding of WCIT-12 back-to-back with WTSA. Responding to an earlier comment by Canada, the United States delegate joked: “there is one person who attended the Melbourne meeting and I have neither retired nor died – and I am willing to give autographs”.
 
Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African Group, also expressed support for holding WCIT-12 back-to-back with WTSA. “We think that this will boost efficiency for limited budgetary resources. We support the idea to decide exact dates based on the preparatory process. The new issues were also considered at WTPF-09 and consensus reached in Opinion 6. We should not interfere in the issues to be considered at the WCIT-12,” the delegate said. With regard to reporting to PP-10, this is an interim report. We support the continuation of the working group. The preparatory process is not just based on the work of the group – regional meetings should complement this preparatory work, the delegate stressed.
 
Mali, adding to the views of the African Group, sought to know the provisions and resources that will be made available so that the preparatory process is effective and efficient. He recalled the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) for the World Radiocommunication Conference and wondered whether this model could be emulated for WCIT-12. Mali then stressed that the secretariat should send the full report of the group on WCIT-12 (Document C10/32, along with its annexes) to all Member States so that they are fully informed. Cuba supported this view, with Mexico emphasizing the importance of preparatory work.
 
The Syrian Arab Republic, speaking on behalf of 21 Arab States and Palestine, noted that the proposal to review ITRs was originally made to the Minneapolis Plenipotentiary Conference by the Arab Group, “because there was dominance by various operators of various countries”. The Arab Group representative explained that, finally PP-06 took the decision to address the issue by adopting Resolution 146. “We left that conference with the understanding that WCIT will become a reality,” the representative added. He went on to underline that there was “no need to change anything in Resolution 1312”.

Conformance and interoperability testing

Malcolm Johnson

• Currently all successful standards development organizations (SDO) dealing with standards on interoperability have, in addition to the production of paper standards, three additional components: testing specifications; conformance testing to determine compliant products; and interoperability testing amongst various manufacturers’ products implementing the standard(s). ITU’s Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), which is the pre-eminent global telecommunication standards body dealing specifically with global interoperability currently lacks these three additional elements in its work place of choice to develop the full range of interoperable standards. It has prompted a plea for help from developing countries, expressed in WTSA Resolution 76, to redress this problem as an important element of assistance to them in achievement of their desired level of conformity and interoperability nationally and internationally in telecommunications. Successful implementation of this programme is therefore crucially important to ITU-T maintaining its status as the pre-eminent global standards development organization in the face of increasing competition from other SDOs, forums and consortia.
  
  
• Defining more interfaces where interoperability can be tested increases competition and reduces the chances of being locked in to a single product.

The first action: implementation of the proposed conformity assessment programme
Mr Johnson said that a pilot version of a conformity database is under development in line with the proposal put to Council-09 and taking account of advice provided by the Telecommunication Standardization Advisory Group (TSAG) and ITU-T’s Joint Coordination Activity on Conformance and Interoperability Testing (JCA-CIT). He said that the database would only record information provided by companies on conformity of their products to ITU-T Recommendations. Companies input the data into the database themselves. Following advice of TSAG, access to the database is TIES protected during the development phase. He pointed out that third party testing for products to enter this database was not a requirement as was suggested in Document C10/64 submitted to this Council session by  Germany and Sweden.

The second action: implementation of the proposed interoperability events programme

The Director of TSB announced that TSB was establishing a calendar of “informal” interoperability events, some in partnership with interested SDOs/forums/consortia. The first such interoperability event is to take place on 20-23 July 2010 to test ITU-T’s standards for IPTV (Internet Television). There is no plan to launch an interoperability database. It will be for the participating companies to determine the form in which the results are presented.

The third action: implementation of the proposed human resources capacity building
Mr Johnson went on to say that TSB and the Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) were preparing a programme of capacity building events. Both Bureaux, he added, looked forward to receiving advice in this regard from the World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-10), to be held in Hyderabad, India, from 24 May to 4 June 2010.

The fourth action: implementation of the proposed recommendations to assist establishment of test facilities in developing countries
Mr Johnson highlighted that TSB and BDT were also working together to assist in the establishment of test facilities in developing countries. Discussions with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) had been initiated regarding assistance to the establishment of testing facilities in developing countries. A pilot project had been conducted in Tanzania. It was stated in the TSAG meeting that test centres in developing countries will cause market confusion. The Director of TSB said he did not accept this of course. He added that as was stated in the Italian Document C10/48, the ITU Conformity Database would help in reducing the need to repeat tests and so limit the costs for industry and decrease the time to market, if Mutual Recognition Agreements and/or Arrangements were established.

ITU Standards connect the world

A business plan for the long-term implementation of these action lines
The Director of TSB concluded that it had also been proposed to Council and agreed that a business plan for the long- term implementation of these action lines would be developed, once the level of demand for these action lines has been determined. He said that TSB had begun work on the framework of this business plan which would provide the environmental background; the pros and cons of acting on Resolution 76; a road map for the implementation of the actions; a budget; legal aspects; study group actions; and partnerships for taking the work forward.
 
Presentation of contributions from Member States
The Chairman then invited the United States, Italy and Germany/Sweden to present their documents.

The United States said in Document C10/49 that ITU must take specific action to bridge the standardization gap through hands-on, targeted training efforts. In achieving all of these aims, the United States believes ITU must maintain and promote the central role of the private sector. It also supports calls for a “step-by-step” approach to first identify the nature of the interoperability and conformity problems in each region before taking the further step of implementing the TSB Director’s recommendations to Council 2009. The United States believes that a business plan that identifies costs and potential liabilities must be completed prior to launching of the proposed ITU-T database. The United States added that the topic of conformance and interoperability testing would also be discussed at the upcoming WTDC-10.

Italy (Document C10/48) supported the current implementation of the programme. Italy had carried out an in-depth analysis on some specific aspects of the “ITU Conformity database process” for which concerns have been raised from WTSA-08 up to now. In its contribution, Italy underlined the results of this analysis and concluded that the concerns were unjustified. 

Germany/Sweden (Document C10/64) had submitted a contribution, following comments from European manufacturing companies regarding the ITU Programme on the implementation of conformity assessment and interoperability testing. Germany/Sweden said that companies consider as costly the proposed plans for the creation of conformance assessment test facilities and Interoperability and Conformity databases with third party testing in accredited test houses. Germany and Sweden proposed to help TSB organize a workshop on this topic in order to address the needs of the developing countries and to further elaborate issues to identify a feasible way forward to fully support these countries.

Discussion and conclusion
The presentation resulted in numerous interventions, and the following delegations  took the floor: the Republic of Korea, Brazil, Canada, Tanzania, Australia, Mexico, Egypt on behalf of the African and Arab countries, Bulgaria, South Africa, the Russian Federation, India, France, Mali, Germany, China, Burkina Faso, Morocco, the United States, the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the TSAG Chairman.

The TSAG Chairman pointed out that the subject had been discussed at length at the recent TSAG meeting in February 2010, where many views were expressed. He said that meetings of TSAG and other mechanisms (JCA-CIT) would service a useful means to report on issues; that ITU-T was interested in forming partnerships; and that the success of the programme would depend on the collaboration of all parties.

Egypt, on behalf of the Arab and African countries, voiced strong support for the implementation programme launched by the Director of TSB and emphasized the need for all recommendations to be executed in parallel, as a step-by-step approach would inevitably lead to delay in implementing Resolution 76. The proposal from Germany and Sweden for a workshop was welcome provided it concentrated on the implementation of solutions and not on further investigation of the problems.

Canada suggested that the Director of TSB convene a meeting with high-level executives of companies on how the three additional components he mentioned could best be added to ITU-T’s work programme. The United States said that the upcoming meeting of Chief Technology Officers would be an excellent occasion to seek a written document from this group on the implementation of Resolution 76.

The Republic of Korea said that TTA (Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea) would support ITU in its interoperability events.

The Russian Federation encouraged BDT and the Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) to participate actively in the programme.
Bulgaria pointed out that the implementation of the proposed action lines would mean a fundamental change to the way ITU-T develops standards.
 
The Director of TSB responded to the various questions and comments as follows:

He emphasized that Resolution 76 address both conformity and interoperability. Conformity did not imply interoperability, but that the chances of interoperability would definitely be higher if equipment had been shown to conform to a standard than if it would fail conformance tests. That is why conformance testing is so important.

The demand for a conformity database was simple: people wanted a database on the ITU website where they could see what products had been successfully tested to ITU-T Recommendations. To ensure the credibility of the database, tests must be carried out in an accredited laboratory: first, second or third party; or be accepted by an accredited certification body. Companies would voluntarily input the data directly into the database, but the information would only be made publicly available after TSB received a Supplier’s Declaration. This limited TSB resources and also avoided any risk of errors by TSB in inputting the data.

He emphasized that TSB was committed to working in consultation with all members and in collaboration with other SDOs, forums and consortia. For example, just within the last couple of weeks TSB had visited ATIS, TIA, ITI – those are the organizations listed in the contribution of the United States (Document C10/49) to this Council –and several Sector Members in the USA to discuss Resolution 76. These were very fruitful meetings, and TSB was ready to continue this dialogue. TSB had also visited the Interoperability Testing Lab of the University of New Hampshire, a not-for profit organization that has a formidable reputation in the testing field and which would be invited to come to the ITU-T Study Group 15 meeting in June.

As to the requirements of developing countries, these have been made very clear over many discussions before and after WTSA-08. Last year TSB conducted 30 workshops most of which addressed conformity and interoperability. TSB intended to continue to organize consultation meetings on the subject of implementing Resolution 76. The next events were planned in Quito (Ecuador) and Nairobi (Kenya). He very much welcomed the proposal from Germany and Sweden to assist TSB in the organization of these events.

The Director of TSB underlined the importance of good participation from developing countries in these events, adding that it would be very helpful if Germany and Sweden, and any other interested parties, could provide some voluntary funding to help towards the cost of hosting these events and to enable TSB to offer some fellowships to ensure good participation. Germany said that Nokia Siemens Networks would not only be able to send experts to these workshops, but would also offer some funding towards fellowships for delegates from developing countries.

Mr Johnson thanked Nokia Siemens and also the Republic of Korea for their offer of support, especially since both were already making a significant contribution to the bridging the standardization gap fund. He encouraged others to follow this example.

Mr Johnson concluded by confirming that TSB is committed to consulting and collaborating with all the ITU-T membership to ensure the successful implementation of Resolution 76. It is a long and winding road but there is no turning back, he said.

The Director of BDT, Sami Al Basheer Al Morshid, also expressed appreciation for the positive tone in the Council on this subject and emphasized that TSB and BDT are working closely together on this issue.

The Chairman then concluded that Documents C10/15 (Rev.1), C10/49, C10/48 and C10/64 be noted and that the workshop proposal was widely accepted. He said that the steps - as outlined by the Director of TSB, taking into account the Germany/Sweden workshop proposal, the comments by the United States, and other comments by the Council - were all going in the right direction. The excellent comments made during this session would be reflected in the summary record of the meeting, the Chairman added.