ITU Conference Proposed on Telecom Financial, Technical Treaty

The WCIT resolution will be considered this week for a vote by the full membership. “As technology evolves, countries are evaluating their policy and regulatory approaches to ensure an enabling environment that fosters supportive, transparent, pro-competitive, and predictable policies, as well as legal and regulatory frameworks that provide appropriate incentives to invest in, and develop, the information society,” the ITU said.

At the WCIT’s heart will be the International Telecom Regulations (ITR), basically addressing international telecom traffic including the Internet and its handling in accounting rates companies charge each other, said an official familiar with the work said. With more deregulation, many such deals are handled outside the venerable accounting rate regime, but still have value for remaining traffic, the official added. ITRs also address certain general interconnection obligations, an official said. “The ITR is an important treaty because it facilitates certain communications and has certain administrative provisions that facilitate international telephone communications,” said D.C. attorney Herbert Marks, vice chmn. of the ITU Council working group on the ITRs, which last met in May 2005.

Billions of dollars in international telecom traffic are settled under the treaty’s provisions, documents said. In opening remarks on ITRs, the U.S. said the system for global traffic exchange under the ITR has worked well. But the Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communication (RCC) proposed provisions that would make it easier to revise ITRs. The changes should consider new matters such as globalization and requirements of the World Trade Organization, Russia said in its opening remarks.

“European proposals are based on the view that ITRs in their present form no longer serve the purpose for which they were designed,” the U.K. said: “The [European] proposals recognize a distinction between high-level policy issues appropriate to treaty-level statutes -- which should retain that status -- and those relating to detailed operational issues which are appropriate for lower level instruments which are more easily and quickly amended, such as recommendations.” Egypt, representing 19 Arab and African countries, said: “No one is unaware of the fact that international telecommunications regulations require amending and updating.”

“Though IP-packet transport is becoming more and more generic, there’s still an infrastructure there,” Marks said: “Some are seeking a payment mechanism similar to legacy accounting rates… If this position prevailed, the question would be how do you establish the respective shares of the parties. That’s what at least some of the battle is about.”

A big treaty conference issue is what to include in the talks, an official said: “There are national shopping lists for what should be on the table in ITR treaty negotiations.” If, for example, quality of service is included, a country “could say we need some agreements on quality of service… At least one country has said yes,” said Marks. It doesn’t mean the votes are there, but it illustrates the scope of issues that countries have been kicking around, he added: “These would be very complicated negotiations that must be approached with extreme care.”

A chairman’s report from the most recent meeting by a group on ITRs that met last in May 2005 said new issues to include in treat talks include spam, dispute settlement, misuse of numbering, quality of service, information and communications network security, Internet governance, new accounting rate methods, IP telephony, international mobile roaming, international mobile satellite service and universal access/service. Possible inconsistencies with the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement on Trade in Services were noted in the report.

Dispute resolution fans want a mandatory intramural dispute resolution mechanism, the chairman’s report said: “Countries have accepted non-consensus decision-making through ITU’s voting provisions. They have also accepted binding dispute resolution within the WTO.” Dispute resolution is “premature to consider, given possible inconsistencies between ITRs and WTO/GATS,” documents said. ITU hasn’t handled bilateral disputes, and it could conflict with ITU’s basic instruments, documents said.

Previous ITR modification proposals drew yawns because the idea was going nowhere, an official said. But it’s among this Plenipot’s big issues, he said: “Many countries see this as the progeny of the WSIS process, to get to these issues.” There was speculation that electing an ITU secretary general and deputy secretary general from the developing world may signal of developing states’ growing strength, and may be shifting the balance, making ITR changes more likely, officials said.