U.S. Urges Caution in Changing International Telecom Treaty
GENEVA -- International talks to change or terminate the International Telecommunication Treaty should keep in mind the “tangible benefits” of the treaty’s regulations, the U.S. told a three-day meeting on the accord. The treaty is critical to reliable flow of international telecom traffic and funds, the U.S. said. Nations agreed in 2006 to review the regulations and gave preliminary approval for a conference, possibly in 2012, to consider treaty revisions (CD Nov 21/06 p6). The regulations, last updated in 1988, sometimes are known as the “Melbourne Agreement” or the “Melbourne Convention.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The regulations ease global interconnection and interoperability of telecommunication facilities, and set rules for sharing costs of telecommunications traffic between ITU member countries, the U.S. said. Billions in telecom traffic settlements each year are based on the regulations, the U.S. said. The treaty gives certainty and predictability to negotiating the agreements, the U.S. said. Contractual murkiness can hinder communications, the U.S. said.
The ITU expert group conducting the review isn’t mandated to review new and emerging telecom issues, the U.S. said. There is agreement that the group’s charter includes identifying how countries and businesses use the regulations and which provisions see use to facilitate exchange of international telecommunications traffic, timely payments and providing service, the U.S. said. The group is composed of government and business representatives.
The U.S. disputed the notion that the regulations are outdated or not used widely. U.S. telecom carriers regularly reference the regulations in “bilateral operating agreements with other international carriers and in resolving or preventing disputes that may arise under such agreements,” the U.S. said. Removing the regulations would risk needless confusion in traffic arrangements and could hurt service delivery, the U.S. said.
The regulations provide “for special mutual arrangements concerning networks, systems or services and is used in the development and implementation of numerous arrangements,” the U.S. said. General provisions on accounting are integrated by indirect reference into numerous agreements, the U.S. said.
The meeting is the second since the working group took form. Participation is about evenly split between operators and government delegates, a participant said.