1
/ Memorandum of Understanding-GMPCSFirst Annual Review Meeting
(Geneva, 3-4 December 1998)
Chairman’s Report
First Annual Review Meeting
Geneva, 3-4 December 1998
Part I
Background
One of the roles of the ITU in the implementation of the GMPCS-MoU Arrangements (Arrangements) is to arrange review meetings. (See Section IV, Paragraph 3.12 of Annex 1 of the GMPCS-MoU Arrangements). However, the GMPCS-MoU Signatories administer the Arrangements, meeting at leastannually to review the GMPCS-MoU, the Arrangements, the budget and related issues.
Moreover, Section V of Annex 1 states that the first review meeting will convene the Signatories of the GMPCS-MoU and potential Signatories to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures established, and to make any necessary changes. Additionally, at that first review meeting, consideration should be given to the status of potential Signatories and implementers of the Arrangements, as well as the issue of Sector membership.
Part II
Meeting Notes
The GMPCS-MoU Group held its first annual review meeting on 3-4 December 1998. Chairman E.N. OleKambainei (Tanzania) opened the meeting and, in his remarks, he emphasized the theme of continuing progress to deliver GMPCS services to consumers.
Afterwards, the Chairman introduced Donald MacLean, Head, Strategic Planning Unit and External Affairs, ITU, who briefed the meeting on the recently concluded Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998). He highlighted Resolution COM 5/13 and Resolution PLEN/4 adopted by the Conference. Then he introduced the address of Dr. Pekka Tarjanne, Secretary-General of the ITU.
The participants watched a video keynote address from the Secretary-General. He spoke of the importance of successfully implementing the Arrangements from the point of view of the GMPCS system operators and service providers, the Member States and the ITU. He stressed that it is of “vital importance to know that the provisions of the GMPCS-MOU and Arrangements designed to protect national sovereignty will be respected -- by system operators, service providers, and end users.” He also emphasized the fact that “for the ITU, it is important that the funding mechanisms of the operational phase are put in place to bring this innovative project to a successful conclusion.” He closed his remarks by praising the GMPCS industry by saying that it “is well on its way to prove that its products and services will finally make universal access to basic communication services a reality.”
The Draft Agenda was approved without amendments as none were offered. The Chairman proposed to combine items 7 and 8 and assign them to a task group to prepare an element of the Chairman’s report. The participants supported the proposal. Item 9 dealing with changes to the Arrangements was left open for discussion in case any change proved necessary.
The meeting re-elected Chairman Eng. E.N. OleKambainei. He acknowledged the resignations of Vice Chairmen, Michael Kennedy (Motorola Inc.), Pekka Lansman (Finland) and Jae-Tae Lee (Korea) and he thanked them their work.
Then the Chairman introduced a proposal to increase the number of vice chairs from three to four and a slate of nominees. The proposal was accepted and the following vice chairmen were installed by acclamation:
Mr. Jamal AL-JARWAN (United Arab Emirates), Vice Chairman, Middle East;
Mr. Hong-Lim LEE (KOREA Telecom), Vice Chairman, Asia/Pacific;
Mr. Richard PARLOW (Iridium LLC),Vice Chairman, the Americas;
Mr. Robert PHILLIPS (ICO Global Communications),Vice Chairman, Europe.
The Report by the Secretary-General was presented by Max-Henri Cadet, Manager, GMPCS-MoU Project. The Report described the depository role of the Secretary-General under the GMPCS-MoU Arrangements. It also dealt with the status of both the general and system-specific implementation of the GMPCS-MoU Arrangements, including the registry of type-approval specifications and terminal types.
The Report also dealt with the use of the Abbreviation “ITU.” The ITU Secretariat prepared Standard System Operator and Terminal Manufacturers Authorization Agreements to be signed by participants seeking to use Abbreviation “ITU” as part of the GMPCS-MoU Mark. The ITU Secretariat explained the obligation of system operators and manufacturers under the authorization agreement to inform the ITU of any known unauthorized use of the Abbreviation "ITU."
The Report also discussed the recovery of ITU costs. It compared the budget for the first six months to the provisional financial statement from the ITU. A budget deficit was projected based on actual contributions from system operators and terminal manufacturers.
The participants engaged in a general discussion of the Report by the Secretary-General. Participants agreed that inconsistencies in implementation letters will be handled through coordination between respective Administrations and Competent Authorities and not by the ITU Secretariat.
Then the Chairman reminded participants that the 1998 Council documents dropped the word “informal” from the name of the group and it is now referred to as the GMPCS-MoU Group. However, the removal of the word does not change the status of the Group nor its working method. It will use its mailing list to exchange ideas and implement the Arrangements.
At the Chairman's invitation, respective participants introduced the following contributions:
1.Document 1-E, Contribution of Iridium LLC, dealt with finances, membership, MoU Signatories, customs, review of Arrangements and its Annex and the database. The document provided a basis for discussing those issues. However, it recommended that the review mechanism for the GMPCS-MoU, the Arrangements and its Annex should be postponed for one year.
2.Document 2-E, Contribution of ICO Global Communications, proposed the following points for discussion: finances of the group, contractual arrangements, ITU operator and manufacturer agreements, review of the GMPCS-MoU, review of the GMPCS-MoU Mark, promoting the MoU and the implementation of the Arrangements, and coordination with the World Customs Organization (WCO). It stressed the point that more work should be done with the WCO to promote awareness of the Mark. The contribution also endorsed the implementation work done to date by the ITU Secretariat.
3.Document 4-E, “Contribution of Iridium LLC and Motorola, Inc.,” dealt with the status of Signatories of the GMPCS-MoU and implementers of the Arrangements and proposed the establishment of an executive committee. It specifically discussed the issues of attendance and participation at annual review meetings and participation in decisions involving finances of the GMPCS-MoU Group. Administrations and/or Competent Authorities should be allowed regardless of signing status. The Executive Committee would consult with the ITU Secretariat on financial matters.
4.Document 6-E, Funding of the GMPCS-MoU Activities, was submitted by the United Kingdom with the support of Inmarsat and ICO. It proposed funding mechanisms for review meetings, the notification process, outreach programs to promote the GMPCS MoU and the Arrangements, and fellowships to assist developing countries. The proposal for funding meetings and notifications are necessary, while funding for outreach and fellowships were deemed discretionary.
Afterwards, the Chairman invited general comments about the contributions in the context of items 7, 8 and 9 the Agenda. The meeting, then, engaged in a discussion of the contributions.
The following points emerged from the discussion:
1.The Chairman reminded the meeting that the World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) recognized the need for assistance to developing countries. Therefore, the resources of the BDT could be used to support activities of the GMPCS MoU Group.
2.The meeting agreed that there was not enough experience to review the three (3) documents: the GMPCS-MoU, the Arrangements and its Annex, because the learning process was ongoing. However, if participants expressed a need to review under Agenda Item 9, the discussion would be included in the Chairman’s report.
3.The proposal to contact the WCO had strong support. But discussions about potential legal implications were deferred.
4. There was general support for the view that participants making financial contributions should make budgetary decisions. Although meetings are open to Administrations and/or Competent Authorities, they could not participate in budgetary decisions. That view was pointed out as a shift in approach within the ITU where Administrations are typically in control and other entities participate as observers.
5.The meeting reached consensus on the fact that an outreach program is one of the most important aspect of the business at hand because global access makes it easier to use GMPCS terminals. Such a program should be aimed at Administrations and end users.
6.Some participants suggested that implementation letters from System Operators should disclose their licenses to provide GMPCS services and list service providers with whom they have reach agreements. Others thought that it was up to each Administration or Competent Authority to provide such information.
7.Some participants expressed their concern about the low level of consultation with Administrations and Competent Authorities. The Chairman reminded the vice chairs to strengthen consultation procedures in their respective regions.
8. The meeting searched for ways to encourage Administrations to send system-specific notifications to the ITU Secretary-General. System Operators should assist Administrations in providing information to the ITU. Others felt that the notification system is working because Administrations are preparing system-specific notifications.
9. A proposal to list or identify the decision makers in each Administration had some support. But it was not seen as the core issue. Rather, the GMPCS-MoU Group should encourage active participation by Administrations and the full implementation of the Arrangements. The meeting concluded that it was up to each country to send its notifications.
10.The meeting agreed that the outreach program should take into consideration the fact that regulators generally do not attend commercial GMPCS conferences. They tend to participate in conferences sponsored by the UN, agencies like USAID, the ITU, other regulators and sub-regional entities.
11.The meeting identified Document 6-E as the most appropriate basis to discuss financial matters that become more important as the GMPCS-MoU Group moves towards an association structure.
After the general discussion, the Chairman announced the establishment of one working group that was open to all. It will draft a document for consideration by the meeting. The scope of the work is to address Item 7 and 8 of the Agenda. The Chairman selected Vice Chairman Phillips to head the subgroup. He also urged System Operators and Terminal Manufacturers to participate along with Administrations and Competent Authorities, especially Ghana, Mali and Zimbabwe. Then, the first plenary session adjourned.
At the beginning of the second plenary session, Mr. Phillips introduced the “Draft Report by the Subgroup.” He highlighted the consensus reached by the Subgroup on membership, financing and management. He stressed that Administrations and Competent Authorities will not be required generally to bear ITU’s implementation costs .Then, he summarized the conclusions and the recommendations of the Subgroup on those matters.
Following the introduction of the “Draft Report by the Subgroup” Chairman OleKambainei invited participants to comment.
The following comments were made by meeting participants:
1.The meeting agreed that Council Resolution 1116 and two resolutions of the 1998 Plenipotentiary Conference, Com5/13 dealing with the depository role of the Secretary-General and Plen/4 on cost recovery, are relevant to the work of the GMPCS-MoU Group and their impact will be noted with time.
2.The meeting discussed in details the role and responsibilities outlined in the Subgroup Report as well as a fee schedule. It was agreed that entities other than Administrations and Competent Authorities that do not pay the annual fee may be charge a meeting fee, as decided by an executive committee in consultation with the Group. The annual fee remains optional for Service Providers.
3.The Subgroup recommended the creation of an Executive Committee. Its functions would include policy matters and day-to-day management, including finances. It was argued that no policy decision should be made by the Committee without seeking comments from the entire GMPCS-MoU Group. Any policy decision should require advice and comments from all members.
4.A proposal for terms of reference for the Executive Committee was introduced out of concern about the control of the GMPCS-MoU Group. It was followed by a proposal to create a Task Force to study various issues and prepare a report. But neither proposal gained support.
5.Among the other proposals presented for the structure of the GMPCS-MoU Group consensus developed around creating a Finance Committee and Management Team that would report to the Group. The ITU Secretariat would participate in both entities. Neither entity would make policy decisions.
6.The Management Team would essentially work on the programs of the Group, while the Finance Committee would review the decisions of the Management Team for their financial implications. The participation in the work of the Finance Committee would be restricted to financial contributors. Administrations and Competent Authorities can participate as observers.
7.It was suggested that the work of both entities should be task-oriented, simple and without complexity. The meeting was reminded of the main purpose of facilitating the movement of GMPCS terminals across borders.
8. Most Administrations from developing countries, especially in the African and Middle East regions, favored the creation of an outreach program because it would be a source of confidence for consumers in both the developing and developed countries. Many participants preferred a regional approach rather than a global one. Participants also expressed the need to work through trade associations and the ITU General Secretariat.
9. Some participants, notably the Ghana Administration, proposed the use of regional seminars for the outreach program. Considering the high level of interest in the outreach program, a proposal to expand it to include frequency allocation received adequate support. Hence regional seminars will place the emphasis, among other things, on how the deployment of GMPCS System should be handled from a regulatory point of view to:
a)Maximize the deployment of GMPCS Systems;
b)Reconcile with other national objectives such as maintaining sovereign control of telecommunication policy;
c)Share equitably the radio-spectrum resource to ensure fair frequency allocation and coordination;
d)Facilitate transparent and fair network interconnection and numbering;
e)Promote radio interference control and methods of ensuring interoperability in the interest of network connectivity and open competition.
10.Participants expressed the need for rapid decision-making, more regionally balanced consultation and communication. The issue of final authority in case of conflict between Finance Committee and Management Team was raised. Participants understood that the spirit of the work is cooperative and compliant.
The meeting reached consensus on the text of the Draft Report Element. Chairman OleKambainei asked Mr. Phillips to incorporate the views adopted in the plenary session into a final report with the assistance of Mr. Gerald Helman (Ellipso), Mr. Nabil Kisrawi (Syria), Mr. Edward Ducharme (Canada). The final text entitled “Report of the Meeting” is attached herewith as Annex 1.
The meeting acknowledged receipt of a letter from the World Customs Organization about customs related matters the task is to be undertaken by the Management Team.
The Chairman announced that the term of office for elected officers is one year. Election will be held at the next annual review meeting. Vice Chairman Robert Phillips (ICO) is responsible for liaison with the World Customs Organization. Vice Chairman Richard Parlow (Iridium LLC) is responsible for the budget. Vice Chairman Hong-Lim Lee (Korea Telecom) is responsible for relations with the ITU Secretariat. Vice Chairman Jamal Al-Jarwan (United Arab Emirates) is responsible for the Outreach Program.
The Finance Committee will hold its first meeting as soon as possible to prepare a budget and a report, including a proposal to look into financing from the BDT.
The Chairman announced that the next annual review meeting will be held the first week of December 1999 in Geneva unless a GMPCS-MoU participant agrees to host it outside of Geneva.
The Chairman thanked the participants and the ITU Secretariat. Then he closed the meeting at 16:40.
- 1 -
/ Memorandum of Understanding-GMPCSFirst Annual Review Meeting
(Geneva, 3-4 December 1998)
Document 9(Rev.1)-E
5 December 1998
Original: English
Report of the meeting
In conformity with Council Resolution 1116 and with Resolution COM 5/13 and Resolution PLEN/4 recently adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998), the meeting agreed on the points below:
Membership of the GMPCS MoU Group
The group would comprise:
Administrations and Competent Authorities: with the right to participate in all meetings, including any decision-making processes.
System operators: with the right to participate in meetings after signing the MoU and paying the membership fee. While they have no obligation to notify their systems immediately, a notification fee will be applicable when they do so.
Manufacturers: with the right to participate in meetings after signing the MoU and paying the membership fee. While they have no obligation to register their types immediately, a fee will be applicable when they do so for each type.
Service providers: with the right to participate in meetings after signing the MoU. However, if the attendance of service providers increases the cost of the meetings, consideration should be given to charging an appropriate meeting participation fee.