INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION


 
Geneva, 25 November 1996


Secretary-General’s Inaugural Remarks
Radiocommunication Seminar
Geneva, 25-29 November 1996



Distinguished delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen
Dear friends,

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the 1996 ITU Radiocommunication Seminar.  Over the next five 
days, you will receive a large number of very interesting presentations on the work of the 
Radiocommunication Sector in general, and the Radiocommunication Bureau in particular.  
Judging by the programme, by the end of this week you will know more about Radiocommunication 
than most of us here in Geneva!  And certainly we will also have learned from you, about the 
challenges you face in doing your work back home.
In my mind, the opportunity provided by this seminar for two-way exchange of information is one of 
its most important features.  From our selfish, bureaucratic point of view, it is of course true that our 
lives will be made easier if you -- the representatives of the ITU administrations -- better 
understand our objectives, working methods and operational constraints.  However, the opposite is 
also true and, in my mind, more important.  If we, the members of the secretariat, are to do a better 
job of serving your needs, it is very important that we understand your objectives, working 
methods, operational constraints, needs and expectations.
I hope that by the end of this week, all of us will be able to leave this meeting feeling not only that 
we have learned some interesting things, but that we have a better understanding of the challenges 
we must face together.  This is particularly important at a time when changes in the overall 
telecommunications environment, but particularly in radiocommunication, are putting ever 
increasing demands on the ITU secretariat and the Members of the Union.
Mr. Chairman,
In these opening remarks, I do not want to anticipate all of the things that are going to be said in 
your own presentation, in the remarks of the Chairman of the Radio Regulations Board, or by any 
of the other distinguished speakers who will follow me.  Instead, I would like to talk about some of 
the main developments that have taken place in the ITU as a whole since the last 
Radiocommunication Seminar -- which took place just after the 1994 Kyoto Plenipotentiary 
Conference -- as well as the challenges that face the Union as we prepare for the Minneapolis 
Plenipotentiary Conference in 1998.
In my mind, the Kyoto Conference was a significant milestone in the history of the ITU for a number 
of reasons.  For the first time, the Members adopted a strategic plan which established general 
directions to guide the future evolution of the Union.  In addition, they launched a number of 
concrete initiatives to give substance to this plan.
Among the most important results of the Kyoto Conference were resolutions aimed at furthering the 
ITU reform process which began at Nice in 1989, which was furthered through the work of the High 
Level Committee, and which produced important results at the Additional Plenipotentiary 
Conference in 1992.  I am sure that all of you can list these resolutions as well as I can -- Res. 15, 
16, 18 and 39 have become part of the working vocabulary of the Union!
Res. 15 and 39 essentially addressed the same question from different points of view: i.e., while 
remaining an intergovernmental organization, how can the ITU enhance the role of Sector 
Members and strengthen the financial foundations of the Union?
This question was studied in parallel by an independent review committee composed of  Member 
States and Sector Members, and by an informal group of Council Members operating with the 
assistance of the secretariat.  Both groups arrived at similar conclusions and made similar 
recommendations.
The recommendations of these two review groups were studied at this year’s ITU Council session.  
Some of the recommendations were adopted right away.  To give further consideration to the 
others, and to prepare proposals for the Minneapolis Conference, Council decided to establish a 
new working group, which is called ITU -2000.
Unlike the Res. 15 and Res. 39 review committees, the ITU-2000 working group is open to 
participation by all ITU State and Sector Members.  It held its first meeting on 24 and 25 October, 
and proved to be much more popular than we had anticipated.  We had to double the size of the 
meeting room to accommodate all of the delegates who wished to participate!
A report of this first meeting has now been circulated to all ITU Member States and Sector 
Members with a request for comments and contributions.  A second meeting to consider this input 
is planned for mid-February, and a final session to prepare a report to Council will take place in late 
April.  I would urge all of you to get involved in the ITU-2000 process, and to make your voices 
heard.
Before leaving the subject of ITU-2000, I should say a few words about the other two Kyoto 
resolutions I have mentioned -- Res. 16 and Res. 18.  As I am sure I do not need to remind you, 
these resolutions deal respectively with the refinement of the Radiocommunication and 
Standardization Sectors, and with the ITU’s frequency coordination and planning framework for 
satellite networks.
From the point of view of some, these resolutions should be handled completely independently of 
the Res. 15 and 39 review processes, which have now been taken over by ITU-2000.  Indeed, 
separate mechanisms for dealing with these topics were established by the Kyoto Conference.  
These mechanisms are fully operational, and have been confirmed by Council.
However, from the point of view of others, there are links between the issues addressed in all of 
these different resolutions.  Questions pertaining to Res. 16 and 18 were discussed in the Res. 15 
and 39 review groups, and proposals related to these resolutions have been submitted to ITU-
2000.
It is of course not my role to say what the best mechanism is for dealing with these different 
subjects.  My only advice is that the mechanism chosen must be dynamic and capable of 
producing real results which will help continue the ITU reform process at the Minneapolis 
Conference.  We simply cannot afford setbacks, if we want to remain relevant.

Mr. Chairman,
I will now switch to another subject, the first-ever ITU World Telecommunication Policy Forum, 
which took place from 21-23 October.  This new event was established by the Kyoto Conference to 
provide a forum where ITU Member States and Sector Members could discuss telecommunications 
policy and regulatory matters.
As I am sure you are all aware, the theme of the first Policy Forum was Global Mobile Personal 
Communications by Satellite, or GMPCS.  The main objective of the WTPF was to reach 
consensus on principles and actions which could facilitate the early implementation of GMPCS on 
a world-wide basis, and in particular help ensure that the benefits of GMPCS systems and services 
are extended to developing countries.
For those of you who were not able to participate in the Policy Forum, I can report that the event 
was a great success.  It was attended by around 1000 people from 128 ITU Member States and 70 
Sector Members, and attracted a great deal of attention, both from the telecommunications trade 
press and the mainstream media.  I think it is fair to say that everyone was very pleased with the 
outcome -- I am still being congratulated over a month later!
Perhaps because they anticipated that the first WTPF would be a success, the members of Council 
decided in June of this year that a second Policy Forum should be held prior to the Minneapolis 
Conference, probably in conjunction with the 1998 Valetta World Telecommunication Development 
Conference.
The theme for this second forum will only be chosen next June, at the 1997 session of Council.  
While it is impossible to predict with certainty which topics will be “hot” in half a year’s time, trade in 
telecommunication services and the GII appear to be front-runners at this time.  A third important 
and controversial issue, the future accounting rate solutions and related call-back problems, cannot 
wait until 1998!
Whatever theme is chosen, I am optimistic that the second Policy Forum will also be a success, 
and that ITU Members will decide that the WTPF should be incorporated in the Constitution and 
Convention as a permanent part of the Union’s structure at the Minneapolis Conference.
Although the Policy Forum is still in an experimental stage of development, I think valuable lessons 
were learned that could perhaps be applied to other ITU conferences and meetings.
The WTPF showed that it is possible for a meeting involving large numbers of ITU Members to 
reach significant agreements on complicated matters in only three days.  How was this possible?
In my mind, the answer to this question lies in the intensive preparations that took place prior to the 
Forum.  While a number of adjustments were made during the event, the WTPF results were 
essentially developed before the event, through a transparent, highly-iterative process which was 
coordinated from Geneva, but which included information sessions and preparatory meetings in all 
ITU regions.
As you all know, we are beginning to prepare seriously for the next World Radiocommunication 
Conference which will take place here in Geneva in less than one year’s time.  Although WRC 97 
will last four weeks there is widespread concern that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to get 
good results even in that period of time, because of the extraordinarily heavy agenda that will face 
the conference.
As always, I am an optimist on this question, and am confident that we will succeed, as we always 
do, in the great ITU tradition.  However, I am also confident that things will go more smoothly, that 
we will have fewer night sessions, less frustration and fatigue, and that fewer mistakes will be made 
if we do our utmost to prepare well for WRC 97.
In preparing for this extremely important conference, the problem is not that we lack preparatory 
mechanisms.  The problem may be the reverse -- either that we have too many, or that we have 
the right number, but they are not properly coordinated.  What should be the role of national 
preparatory processes, regional preparatory processes, inter-regional preparatory meetings and 
the Conference Preparatory Meeting?  How can we improve the use of modern electronic 
information exchange technologies?  How can we ensure that the results of all of our preparatory  
activities are efficient and harmonious?
While I realize that the subjects I have mentioned are not on the agenda of this Seminar, I hope 
you will find time to discuss them informally during the coming week.  With so many distinguished 
delegates assembled, it would be a shame not to take advantage of the opportunity. 
In conclusion, I wish you a productive seminar, with plenty of good information exchange here in 
the meeting hall, and outside it as well!
*******
4