+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+
| United States Department of State           | ####                   |
|                                             | ##### ![](media/image1 |
| #########                                   | .jpeg){width="1.340277 |
|                                             | 7777777777in" height=" |
|                                             | 1.2902777777777779in"} |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------+

**United States Delegation Report**

World Radiocommunication Conference 2003

![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.5283464566929135in"
height="0.7452755905511811in"}![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.5283464566929135in"
height="0.7452755905511811in"}![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.5283464566929135in"
height="0.7452755905511811in"}![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.5283464566929135in"
height="0.7452755905511811in"}

Geneva, Switzerland

June 9 --- July 4, 2003

United States Delegation Report

World Radiocommunication Conference 2003

Geneva, Switzerland

June 9 -- July 4, 2003

Submitted to the Secretary of State

by

Ambassador Janice Obuchowski

United States Head of Delegation

+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
| ![](media/imag                       | United States Department of   |
| e4.jpeg){width="1.179861111111111in" | State                         |
| height="1.1701388888888888in"}       |                               |
|                                      | *Washington, D.C. 20520*      |
|                                      |                               |
|                                      | December 8, 2003              |
+--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+

The Honorable Colin Powell

Secretary of State

Department of State

Washington, D.C.

Dear Secretary Powell:

As Head of the United States Delegation to the 2003 World
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-2003) in Geneva, Switzerland, I am
honored to submit to you this final report on our accomplishments there.
The purpose of this treaty-level conference, convened by the
International Telecommunication Union, was to provide for the intensive
and varied uses of radio frequencies among all countries. Given the huge
investments in radio spectrum-dependent technologies made by our public
and private sectors, the stakes in the outcome of the conference were
very high for the United States. These technologies are evolving rapidly
in commercial and governmental spheres alike. Therefore, the United
States Delegation engaged aggressively to continue leadership in them.

Our delegation, consisting of 167 government and private-sector experts,
met the complex challenges faced at WRC-2003. The delegation represented
our nation's interests well, doing so in the best traditions of
patriotism, professionalism, determination and friendly outreach that
characterize American participation in multilateral diplomacy.

This report details how we met U.S. goals. This success would not have
been possible without painstaking and comprehensive preparatory efforts
prior to the conference. We were the beneficiaries of effective
preparatory processes spearheaded by the Federal Communications
Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, and this Department, through the Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs, Office of International Communications and Information
Policy.

On behalf of all of those individuals who served on, or supported, our
delegation, I would like to thank the President, the Department of
State, and you for the great privilege of representing the United States
of America at WRC-2003.

Sincerely,

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="2.8020833333333335in" height="0.7in"}

Janice Obuchowski

Ambassador

REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION TO WRC-2003

**Table of Contents**

1.0 Executive Summary 1

1.  Results of Action on Major Agenda Items 4

2.  Major Commercial Agenda Items 4

3.  National Security and Public Safety Agenda Items 7

4.  Resolution 4 10

5.  Future Agenda Items 11

6.  Political Issues 11

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  Background 12

    1.  Introduction and Overview 12

    2.  U.S. Objectives for the Conference 12

    3.  Conference Preparatory Efforts 16

    4.  International Preparations 20

    5.  Development and Submission of Final U.S. Proposals 21

3.0 The Conference 22

#  3.1 Organization, Functions and Support of the U.S. Delegation 22 {#organization-functions-and-support-of-the-u.s.-delegation-22 .Heading-0}

#  3.2 Overall Conference Structure 26 {#overall-conference-structure-26 .Heading-0}

3.3. Initial Conference Dynamics 27

#  {#section-2 .Heading-0}

#  Outcome of the Conference 29 {#outcome-of-the-conference-29 .Heading-0}

# 4.1 COM 1 -- Steering Committee 29 {#com-1-steering-committee-29 .Heading-0}

# 4.2 COM 2 -- Credentials Committee 29 {#com-2-credentials-committee-29 .Heading-0}

# 4.3 COM 3 -- Budget Control 30 {#com-3-budget-control-30 .Heading-0}

# 4.4 COM 4 -- Regulatory and Associated Issues 31 {#com-4-regulatory-and-associated-issues-31 .Heading-0}

# 4.5 COM 5 -- Allocations and Associated Issues 52 {#com-5-allocations-and-associated-issues-52 .Heading-0}

# 4.6 COM 6 -- Appendices 30, 30A and 30B 66 {#com-6-appendices-30-30a-and-30b-66 .Heading-0}

# 4.7 COM 7 -- Miscellaneous Agenda Items and {#com-7-miscellaneous-agenda-items-and .Heading-0}

#  Future Agendas 68 {#future-agendas-68 .Heading-0}

# 4.8 U.S. Reservations to the Final Acts of WRC-2003 74 {#u.s.-reservations-to-the-final-acts-of-wrc-2003-74 .Heading-0}

# 4.9 Political Issues 74 {#political-issues-74 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-3 .Heading-0}

# 5.0 Factors in Meeting U.S. Objectives 76 {#factors-in-meeting-u.s.-objectives-76 .Heading-0}

# 5.1 Disciplined Strategy Development and Delegation  {#disciplined-strategy-development-and-delegation .Heading-0}

#  Management 76 5.2 The U.S. Country Outreach Program 77 {#management-76-5.2-the-u.s.-country-outreach-program-77 .Heading-0}

#  5.3 U.S.-Sponsored Information Booths 81 {#u.s.-sponsored-information-booths-81 .Heading-0}

# 5.4 U.S-Sponsored Seminars on Wi-Fi Technology. 82 {#u.s-sponsored-seminars-on-wi-fi-technology.-82 .Heading-0}

# 5.5 Commitment to Regional Cooperation 83 {#commitment-to-regional-cooperation-83 .Heading-0}

# 6.0 Conclusion 85 {#conclusion-85 .Heading-0}

#    LIST OF ANNEXES {#list-of-annexes .Heading-0}

#  {#section-4 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-5 .Heading-0}

Annex A --- Organization of the U.S. Delegation

Annex B --- U.S. Delegation Leadership, Committee Chairpersons and

Spokespersons

Annex C --- Members of the U.S. Delegation

Annex D --- U.S. Delegation Core Group

Annex E --- WRC-2003 Conference Agenda

Annex F --- WRC-2003 Organization and Committee Structure

Annex G --- WRC-2003 Subcommittee Structure and U.S. Delegation

Spokespersons

Annex H --- Draft Agendas for WRC-2007 and WRC-2010

#   {#section-6 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-7 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-8 .Heading-0}

# Portions of this report were written by representatives of the United States government and private sector who served on the delegation to WRC-2003. John R. Alden edited the report. {#portions-of-this-report-were-written-by-representatives-of-the-united-states-government-and-private-sector-who-served-on-the-delegation-to-wrc-2003.-john-r.-alden-edited-the-report. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-9 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-10 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-11 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-12 .Heading-0}

**1.0** **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

# The International Telecommunication Union's Radiocommunication Sector ("ITU-R") held its 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference ("WRC-2003" or "WRC-03") from June 9 to July 4, 2003, in Geneva, Switzerland. WRC-2003 occurred at a time of changing geopolitical and economic conditions, particularly in comparison with its predecessor in 2000. For the United States, the outlook coming into WRC-2003 was very different from the outlook heading into the Istanbul conference three years earlier. Now waging a war against terrorism, the United States\' priorities were inevitably more focused upon preserving the global access to spectrum resources required to protect its national security and public safety. Safeguarding the ability of the United States government Departments and agencies to perform their missions is always a mandate for U.S. Delegations. But at no time in recent memory had this mandate been more clear. {#the-international-telecommunication-unions-radiocommunication-sector-itu-r-held-its-2003-world-radiocommunication-conference-wrc-2003-or-wrc-03-from-june-9-to-july-4-2003-in-geneva-switzerland.-wrc-2003-occurred-at-a-time-of-changing-geopolitical-and-economic-conditions-particularly-in-comparison-with-its-predecessor-in-2000.-for-the-united-states-the-outlook-coming-into-wrc-2003-was-very-different-from-the-outlook-heading-into-the-istanbul-conference-three-years-earlier.-now-waging-a-war-against-terrorism-the-united-states-priorities-were-inevitably-more-focused-upon-preserving-the-global-access-to-spectrum-resources-required-to-protect-its-national-security-and-public-safety.-safeguarding-the-ability-of-the-united-states-government-departments-and-agencies-to-perform-their-missions-is-always-a-mandate-for-u.s.-delegations.-but-at-no-time-in-recent-memory-had-this-mandate-been-more-clear. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-13 .Heading-0}

# At the same time, WRC-2003 was---as most recent radiocommunication conferences have been---a chance for the U.S. to exercise its technological leadership by introducing and expanding the opportunities for new commercial services and applications. Perhaps the clearest example of this was the U.S. role in securing a worldwide allocation for wireless LAN devices and services in the 5 GHz range. In a world in which technological and market developments overtake all efforts to plan and regulate, Wi-Fi and other wireless LAN technologies represent the kind of market-driven, grass-roots development of consumer technologies that the U.S. market can incubate so well. Moreover, the exacting nature of the spectrum environment in the United States has yielded technical solutions that can be applied around the world, where the needs for low-cost network access and information technologies are acute. {#at-the-same-time-wrc-2003-wasas-most-recent-radiocommunication-conferences-have-beena-chance-for-the-u.s.-to-exercise-its-technological-leadership-by-introducing-and-expanding-the-opportunities-for-new-commercial-services-and-applications.-perhaps-the-clearest-example-of-this-was-the-u.s.-role-in-securing-a-worldwide-allocation-for-wireless-lan-devices-and-services-in-the-5-ghz-range.-in-a-world-in-which-technological-and-market-developments-overtake-all-efforts-to-plan-and-regulate-wi-fi-and-other-wireless-lan-technologies-represent-the-kind-of-market-driven-grass-roots-development-of-consumer-technologies-that-the-u.s.-market-can-incubate-so-well.-moreover-the-exacting-nature-of-the-spectrum-environment-in-the-united-states-has-yielded-technical-solutions-that-can-be-applied-around-the-world-where-the-needs-for-low-cost-network-access-and-information-technologies-are-acute. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-14 .Heading-0}

# Another example of the way in which the United States continued to push the envelope at WRC-2003 is its success in securing a global allocation for in-flight broadband network services. The United States, which pioneered the Internet and has pushed for broadband access anywhere on Earth, is now pioneering broadband access *above* the Earth, as well. Meanwhile, the successful resolution of WRC-2003's agenda item on GPS will mean the continuing roll-out of improved location-finding services and applications, translating into myriad new benefits for consumers, scientists and public safety workers.  {#another-example-of-the-way-in-which-the-united-states-continued-to-push-the-envelope-at-wrc-2003-is-its-success-in-securing-a-global-allocation-for-in-flight-broadband-network-services.-the-united-states-which-pioneered-the-internet-and-has-pushed-for-broadband-access-anywhere-on-earth-is-now-pioneering-broadband-access-above-the-earth-as-well.-meanwhile-the-successful-resolution-of-wrc-2003s-agenda-item-on-gps-will-mean-the-continuing-roll-out-of-improved-location-finding-services-and-applications-translating-into-myriad-new-benefits-for-consumers-scientists-and-public-safety-workers. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-15 .Heading-0}

# The United States could not be certain, by any means, that all delegations around the globe shared its priorities, interests or, indeed, its vision of a productive WRC-2003, devoid of distractions from extraneous geopolitical issues. And yet, this is exactly the kind of Conference WRC-2003 turned out to be. There certainly were contentious issues, and geopolitical undercurrents were apparent. This did not, however, stop the vast majority of delegates from applying themselves to the agenda items before them, to the exclusion of issues peripheral to the work of the WRC. {#the-united-states-could-not-be-certain-by-any-means-that-all-delegations-around-the-globe-shared-its-priorities-interests-or-indeed-its-vision-of-a-productive-wrc-2003-devoid-of-distractions-from-extraneous-geopolitical-issues.-and-yet-this-is-exactly-the-kind-of-conference-wrc-2003-turned-out-to-be.-there-certainly-were-contentious-issues-and-geopolitical-undercurrents-were-apparent.-this-did-not-however-stop-the-vast-majority-of-delegates-from-applying-themselves-to-the-agenda-items-before-them-to-the-exclusion-of-issues-peripheral-to-the-work-of-the-wrc. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-16 .Heading-0}

# As the largest single delegation to WRC-2003, the United States played a key role in producing a business-like conference. It was clearly in the United States\' interest to work for such a result, given the unprecedented number of agenda items of interest to it and the scope and scale of participation by other countries, on both national and regional levels. It is absolutely clear, however, that the need to have a tightly focused, productive Conference was recognized by other administrations, including those of other major economic powers and the developing world, by the leadership of the Conference, and by the ITU leadership. To a large extent, the delegations adhered to the tone and practices set at the very beginning of the Conference. It is doubtful that WRC-2003 could have been so successful, for the many parties involved, had they not done so. As it was, the resulting Conference was an example of the best traditions of multilateral diplomacy. {#as-the-largest-single-delegation-to-wrc-2003-the-united-states-played-a-key-role-in-producing-a-business-like-conference.-it-was-clearly-in-the-united-states-interest-to-work-for-such-a-result-given-the-unprecedented-number-of-agenda-items-of-interest-to-it-and-the-scope-and-scale-of-participation-by-other-countries-on-both-national-and-regional-levels.-it-is-absolutely-clear-however-that-the-need-to-have-a-tightly-focused-productive-conference-was-recognized-by-other-administrations-including-those-of-other-major-economic-powers-and-the-developing-world-by-the-leadership-of-the-conference-and-by-the-itu-leadership.-to-a-large-extent-the-delegations-adhered-to-the-tone-and-practices-set-at-the-very-beginning-of-the-conference.-it-is-doubtful-that-wrc-2003-could-have-been-so-successful-for-the-many-parties-involved-had-they-not-done-so.-as-it-was-the-resulting-conference-was-an-example-of-the-best-traditions-of-multilateral-diplomacy. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-17 .Heading-0}

# This is all the more remarkable for the fact that WRC-2003 may well turn out to be the largest radiocommunication conference ever held. Even as the Conference got under way, the ITU\'s leadership urged administrations to consider whether WRCs had grown too large and complex, and burdened with too many agenda items. Budgetary problems facing the ITU-R were a constant undercurrent running through the Conference. It is no coincidence, therefore, that delegates worked to reach closure on as many items as possible. They were remarkably successful, with the result that the next WRC, whether held in 2007 or 2008, will have fewer agenda items than did this conference. {#this-is-all-the-more-remarkable-for-the-fact-that-wrc-2003-may-well-turn-out-to-be-the-largest-radiocommunication-conference-ever-held.-even-as-the-conference-got-under-way-the-itus-leadership-urged-administrations-to-consider-whether-wrcs-had-grown-too-large-and-complex-and-burdened-with-too-many-agenda-items.-budgetary-problems-facing-the-itu-r-were-a-constant-undercurrent-running-through-the-conference.-it-is-no-coincidence-therefore-that-delegates-worked-to-reach-closure-on-as-many-items-as-possible.-they-were-remarkably-successful-with-the-result-that-the-next-wrc-whether-held-in-2007-or-2008-will-have-fewer-agenda-items-than-did-this-conference. .Heading-0}

The Conference broke all past precedents in terms of the scope of the
agenda. There were 48 separate agenda items, a figure that represented
roughly a doubling of the agenda's size from the previous WRC, which was
held in 2000. In keeping with the large number of issues to be resolved,
some 138 administrations sent a total of 2,300 delegates to the
conference. The U.S. Delegation contained 167 members, of whom
approximately 40 were "senior advisers."

All significant U.S. objectives were met. This includes objectives on
agenda items with prominent commercial benefits to the U.S.
telecommunications and aerospace industries, as well as those agenda
items that pertained to key U.S. government systems.

The U.S. Delegation's success in meeting its objectives came despite
strong resistance from other countries and regional groupings that are
U.S. economic rivals or, in some cases, political opponents. As in past
WRC conferences, the U.S. differed on several key issues with the
European group. The U.S. also encountered disagreements and hard
negotiations with some members of the Arab and Asian groups---notably,
Syria and Iran. In all cases, however, the U.S. was able to negotiate
compromises and agreements that furthered and protected U.S. commercial
and governmental interests.

WRC-2003 was chaired by Dr. Veena Rawat of Canada, acknowledged by the
Conference as the first woman to preside over a WRC. Dr. Rawat proved to
be an excellent administrator and time manager, shepherding the
Conference to a successful conclusion within the allotted time frame and
without a major breach of consensus. Ambassador Janice Obuchowski, Head
of the U.S. Delegation, served as a Vice Chairperson and developed a
very positive working relationship with the Chairman. Dr. Rawat
responded favorably to the U.S. Delegation's focus on the merits of the
agenda items at hand, as did the Conference participants in general.
Hence, linkage or politicization of the spectrum allocation and
regulatory issues was minimized.

As foreseen prior to the opening of the Conference, this WRC featured a
maturation of the trend, over recent decades, of countries' working
through regional telecommunications organizations. The U.S. preparatory
process was carried out in close concert with other member nations of
the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL), the
telecommunications arm of the Organization of American States (OAS). On
many of the issues, the U.S. went into the Conference having developed
consolidated proposals with CITEL member nations. These "Inter-American
Proposals" or "IAPs" served the U.S. well in many cases. Regional
cooperation, not only within CITEL, but also with other regional groups
such as the African Telecommunications Union (ATU) and the Asia-Pacific
Telecommunity or "APT" group enabled the U.S. delegation to
counterbalance, as needed, the collective power of the European bloc,
which operates through the Conference of European Postal and
Telecommunications (CEPT) administrations.

In addition to its regional alliances, the U.S. Delegation planned and
carried out an extensive outreach effort throughout the month-long
Conference. Individual U.S. Delegation members were assigned to
cultivate ties with other delegations. This technique maximized the size
and strength of the U.S. Delegation. Each Delegation member was
encouraged to build an informal relationship with his counterpart
country delegation. This is instrumental in an organization such as the
ITU, which employs the UN system of weighting each country equally,
under a one-country, one-vote system.

In addition, the Delegation as a whole carried out a substantial program
of events to remain connected with key countries and regional blocs. The
U.S. invited nearly every WRC delegate to our WRC reception, held during
the first week of the Conference under the sponsorship of the U.S.
private sector. The United States also hosted joint receptions, lunches
and dinners with key partners, including CITEL, CEPT, the African
Telecommunications Union, the Russian delegation and the Asia-Pacific
bloc. This outreach effort, carried out consistently over a one-month
period, was instrumental for the exchange of views, the alignment of
positions and, eventually, the coordination of plenary actions pursuant
to mutual interests.

Because of its role as a technological innovator and market leader, the
United States has perhaps more at stake than any other nation
represented at the periodic WRCs. Its Table of Allocations is more
complex; the number of government and private sector stakeholders is
more profuse; and the sheer sophistication of spectrum-dependent
activities is higher than any other country in the world. The number of
citizens whose interests it must advance and protect is larger, by far,
than the vast majority of countries represented at WRCs. Yet, the United
States has just a single vote.

The measure of success for the United States at WRC-2003 was the ability
of its Delegation to prepare for essentially all agenda items with the
potential to impact U.S. commercial and governmental interests. The
United States, like other countries, must approach this task through
careful preparation and coordination with its neighbors and allies---and
indeed, with all countries that share its interests. Success in the WRC
environment calls for firmness in defending U.S. interests and
principles, coupled with technical expertise and diplomatic agility. The
result of WRC-2003 indicates that the U.S. Delegation succeeded in this
effort.

## **1.1 Results of Action on Major Agenda Items**

The United States Delegation had several major objectives going into the
Conference, including the following:

-   Allocation of spectrum in the 5 gigahertz (GHz) range for Mobile
    Service, to support wireless local area network (WLAN) systems
    (e.g., Wi-Fi);

-   Upgrade of allocations in the same spectrum range (5 GHz) for
    Radiolocation, Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and Space
    Research Service (SRS);

-   A secondary allocation for Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
    (AMSS) in the 14-14.5 GHz band to support the commercial roll-out of
    broadband services for airline passengers;

-   Agreement on sharing and coordination mechanisms to protect existing
    services in the 1100-1300 MHz frequency range and to allow the
    upgrade of the U.S. GPS (Global Positioning System) satellite
    service in the Radionavigation Satellite Service (RNSS);

-   The protection of government Radiolocation systems (i.e., military
    radars) and satellite data relay systems (i.e., NASA's Tracking and
    Data Relay Satellite System) from interference in the 13.75-14 GHz
    band, shared with Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) systems;

-   Resolution of procedural and planning issues involving Broadcast
    Satellite Service (BSS), as well as the protection of small-sized
    BSS dishes widely used in the United States; and

-   Resolution of issues to pave the way for use of earth stations on
    board vessels (ESVs) communicating with FSS space stations.

-   Depoliticization of the Conference;

-   Agreement on an agenda for the next World Radiocommunication
    Conference that focused on specific spectrum requirements and that
    did not unnecessarily strain ITU resources;

The United States substantially met each one of these objectives. The
following is a more detailed discussion of action on each of the key
agenda items mentioned above.

### **1.2** **Major Commercial** **Agenda Items** 

*1.2.1 Wireless LAN allocations at 5 GHz (Agenda Item 1.5)*

Going into the Conference, the United States supported a global
allocation of spectrum for mobile service in the 5150-5350 MHz and
5470-5725 MHz bands. This would result in a total of 455 MHz allocated
for wireless LANs (e.g., "Wi-Fi" systems) or, as the ITU classifies such
systems, Radio Local Area Networks (RLANs).

Before the WRC, the primary difference between the U.S. position and
others involved whether to allow outdoor use of WLAN devices operating
in the 5250-5350 MHz sub-band. The United States proposed permitting
outdoor use, while the Europeans proposed to ban it. During the
Conference, this issue proved difficult to resolve, with debate
persisting well into the third week. After a clear stalemate in the
debate, however, an ad hoc group was formed, with an Australian
chairman, to pursue a resolution on the outdoor use issue.

Noting that the United States was already committed to such outdoor use
and that deployment of Wi-Fi technology is inherently difficult to
police, many national delegations came to the gradual conclusion that it
was expedient from a regulatory perspective to align with the U.S.
position. In addition, Wi-Fi manufacturers, including European ones,
became more convinced of the benefits of pursuing economies of scale in
chip design.

By early in the fourth week of the conference, a compromise agreement
emerged that entailed (1) an indoor restriction in the 5150-5250 MHz
band to protect MSS feeder links; (2) no ban on outdoor use in the
5250-5350 MHz band, but text encouraging "predominantly" indoor use in
the band; and (3) technical constraints (including an optional antenna
emission mask) for use in the 5460-5725 MHz band.

The final result represents a global allocation of 455 MHz of spectrum
for WLANs, an amount that will provide opportunities for U.S.
manufacturers to achieve economies of scale and pioneer new markets in
this globally harmonized spectrum. In addition, there is an opportunity,
with minimal constraints, for outdoor use of WLAN devices in 355 of the
455 MHz allocated at the Conference. This gives the United States
sufficient flexibility to proceed with its own allocations for WLANs,
pursuant to the technical parameters developed by the
government/private-sector approach developed domestically earlier this
year.

The final result reflects very effective engagement between the
Department of Defense and the FCC, with NTIA's support. DoD's vital
interests in this band had driven a rigid position by the United States
up to and through the WRC Conference Preparatory Meeting in November
2002. However, reacting to feedback from that meeting---and showing
strong faith in the power of technology to solve regulatory
problems---the Department of Defense amended its viewpoint. It was able
to agree to broad-based Wi-Fi deployment in the bands at issue, so long
as dynamic frequency selection (DFS) technology was incorporated as part
of the regulatory structure for unlicensed use. The incorporation of DFS
technology thereafter strengthened the U.S. position overall with regard
to agenda item 1.5.

*1.2.2 Secondary Allocation for Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
(AMSS) at 14-14.5 GHz (Agenda Item 1.11)*

This agenda item was vital for U.S. aerospace and communications
companies, including Boeing Corp., which has developed its *Connexion*
service to provide broadband Internet access to airline passengers. The
United States managed to build broad support for this allocation prior
to the Conference, including support from fellow CITEL members in North
and South America.

Although the U.S. Delegation saw no regulatory issues with the
allocation, several administrations expressed concern about protection
of terrestrial fixed wireless services in the band. One group opposed
the United States on this agenda item in Committee 4 (regulatory
issues). The U.S. Delegation was successful, during the first week of
the Conference, in ensuring that both Committee 4 and Committee 5
(allocations) would act on the proposed allocation.

The result was that the allocation was approved by the WRC, clearing the
way for secondary AMSS operations in the band. Moreover, the United
States managed to limit the regulatory provisions to country-specific
footnotes, avoiding any general restrictions on the allocation. In
addition, the Conference adopted a footnote that makes clear that
secondary AMSS earth stations (that is, the equipment installed in the
airplanes) can communicate with primary FSS space stations. The AMSS
allocation became effective immediately following the Conference, on
July 5, 2003, clearing the way for rollout of this commercial service by
Boeing and any other companies seeking to enter the market.

3.  *Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS) Issues (Agenda Item 1.27)*

This agenda item addressed allotment of spectrum for the provision of
the broadcast satellite services in Europe, Asia, and Africa. The
discussions under this agenda item were extremely contentious but did
not directly involve the interests of the United States. The issue of
protection of U.S. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) receiver dishes,
however, was important to commercial DBS interests, because of the
impact of spectrum sharing discussions on it. The United States has some
20 million receiver dishes that are 45 centimeters in diameter, and
proposals by some administrations in other regions sought not to
recognize (i.e., provide regulatory protection to) receivers smaller
than 60 centimeters.

The U.S. Delegation successfully persuaded the Conference to continue
protecting satellite dishes down to a minimum of 45 centimeters in
Region 2 (which covers the Americas), thus protecting existing U.S. BSS
dishes. The United States was able to show that use of the smaller
dishes is fully compatible with operations in other countries.\
\
*1.2.4 Regulatory Provisions and Identification of Bands for
High-Altitude Platform Systems (HAPS) (Agenda Item 1.13)*

The major issue raised here was whether 2 times 300 MHz (2X300 MHz) of
spectrum in the 27 GHz and 34 GHz bands could be identified for HAPS use
in additional countries. Before the Conference, those bands were
available for HAPS only through a footnote, and only in several Asian
countries. Another issue was whether a current freeze on filings for new
FSS systems would be lifted in the 47 GHz band, which is shared between
HAPS and FSS on a co-primary basis.

The primary commercial proponent for this agenda item was a U.S.
company, Sky Tower, which had developed, under NASA sponsorship, a
system using an unmanned, solar-powered aircraft for use as a
high-altitude transmission platform for telecommunications. The United
States had contributed Sky Tower studies to the ITU indicating that any
potential interference to FSS and Fixed Service systems caused by the
system could be predicted and mitigated. The United States and CITEL
backed a proposal to draft a resolution identifying the bands for HAPS,
going into the Conference.

The proposal encountered stiff resistance from some European
administrations. This prompted CITEL (with U.S. support) to modify its
proposal to make the proposed resolution apply only to Regions 2 (the
Americas) and 3 (Asia), while exempting Region 1 (Europe and Africa).
The Europeans continued to oppose the proposal, however, arguing that
the close geographic proximity and long border between Regions 1 and 3
would impact negatively on terrestrial systems in Europe. The geographic
separation between Region 2 land areas and those of the other regions,
however, provided no basis for European opposition to application of
HAPS in the Americas. In the end, the proposal was adopted for Region 2,
which includes the United States. Several countries in Asia (South
Korea, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines and Kazakhstan, among others)
added their names to a footnote allowing HAPS in Region 3.

On the second issue, the freeze on FSS filings in the 47 GHz band was
lifted for Region 2. Finally, two resolutions were amended and
continued, calling for further ITU studies of spectrum bands that could
be identified for HAPS in the future.

### ** 1.3 National Security and Public Safety Agenda Items**

*1.3.1 Sharing and Coordination for Radionavigation Satellite Service
(RNSS) Systems (Agenda Item 1.15)*

This issue involved the existing RNSS systems operated by the United
States (GPS) and Russia (GLONASS), as well as the planned European
system, Galileo. It proved to be the most contentious of WRC-2003 and
was not finally resolved until a compromise agreement was endorsed by a
plenary session at 11 p.m. on the last business day of the Conference.

The U.S. had been diligently working on resolution of the narrow
technical questions that were present on the WRC agenda itself. The
Delegation believed that most of those issues were near resolution going
into the Conference. But, given the industrial policy implications of
the Galileo system for the European Space Agency (ESA) and the European
Commission, this agenda item became encumbered with political concerns
on the Europeans' part. Positions expressed by some European
administrations indicated broader concerns of viability of Galileo and
its positioning at the ITU relative to GPS and other future RNSS systems
that may be developed.

The agenda item at this WRC was a follow-up from WRC-2000, during which
new allocations had been made to accommodate additional RNSS systems,
including Galileo. There were three allocations at issue, each of which
was of vital concern to the United States because of the need to secure
sufficient flexibility for the coming upgrade of GPS signals.

The issue of RNSS compatibility with Radio Astronomy service in one of
the bands (5010-5030 MHz) was resolved without any major problem. All
parties agreed to adopt the technical results contained in a report of
the Conference Preparatory Meeting held in the autumn of 2002. This met
the U.S. objective for this band. Similarly, RNSS/radar compatibility
studies for the 1215-1300 MHz band resulted in full agreement between
the parties that no power limits needed to be placed on RNSS systems,
including GPS. That met the U.S. goal of blocking the imposition of any
power flux density (PFD) limit in the band.

The lightning rod for disagreement at the Conference proved to be the
1164-1215 MHz band. In this band, the Europeans---in particular, the
French spokesman for the Europeans---strongly pressed for application of
a formal coordination procedure, detailed in Article 9 of the Radio
Regulations. Retroactive application of Article 9 coordination would
provide an advantageous position for the Galileo system, which the
Europeans insisted had been filed at the ITU before the U.S. filing for
the GPS upgrade. This would give Galileo precedence under a first-come,
first-served approach, requiring that GPS accommodate Galileo in the
coordination process. The U.S., which believed that Galileo might
actually have filed too early under the rules, strongly opposed any
retroactive application of Article 9.

Both sides adhered firmly to their positions throughout the first three
weeks of the Conference, with the European regional group, CEPT,
threatening to bring the issue to a formal vote with the support of the
Arab Group.

Final resolution of the issue came with a compromise, in which the
Europeans agreed to apply Article 9 only prospectively, to RNSS systems
filed in the band after January 1, 2005. This effectively grandfathered
both Galileo and GPS, rendering moot any question of precedence under
the Article 9 procedure. This represented a victory by the U.S.
Delegation, as it will preserve the ability, under informal coordination
mechanisms, for the upgrade of GPS, as planned. Moreover, the U.S. also
succeeded in large part in its pursuit of informal coordination
threshold criteria designed to ensure that only viable systems---not
"paper" satellite systems that may never be built---are factored into
calculations for protecting other services in the band. The U.S. success
on this agenda item can be attributed to firm resolution to defend its
interests and principles, as well as to alert and effective support by
all concerned branches of the U.S. government.

2.  *Extension of space science allocations at 5 GHz (also Agenda Item
    1.5)*

As part of Agenda Item 1.5, the U.S. sought the following:

-   The addition of primary allocations for Earth Exploration Satellite
    Service (EESS) and Space Research Service (SRS) in the 5460-5570 MHz
    band;

-   A primary allocation for SRS at 5350-5460 MHz, providing a
    continuous allocation from 5250-5570 MHz, and

-   Protection of an existing EESS allocation at 5250-5350 MHz from
    mobile services (the RLAN allocations explained in Section 1.2.1,
    above).

The primary stakeholder pursuing these objectives was the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which substantially
achieved its aims. The Conference approved an allocation for both EESS
and SRS at 5460-5570 MHz. In addition, the Conference generated a
primary allocation for SRS from 5350-5460 MHz, and it secured protection
from mobile service operations through two footnotes that prohibit
mobile services from causing harmful interference to other services in
the band.

Taken as a whole, Agenda Item 1.5 represents a victory for the U.S.
delegation, which was able to secure a commercially important set of
allocations while simultaneously securing balanced provisions to protect
vital NASA operations.

*1.3.3* *Spectrum Sharing in the 13.75-14 GHz Band (Agenda Item 1.24)*

In this agenda item, FSS interests around the globe sought to relax the
requirement that FSS satellite dishes must be at least 4.5 meters in
diameter to be used in this band. Countries supporting change in this
agenda item sought permission for the FSS dishes to be smaller, thus
potentially sparking more widespread commercial use in this band. The
United States, despite its strong satellite industry, opposed any such
reduction in the satellite dish size. Concern that more widespread dish
deployment would cause harmful interference to incumbent services with
primary status in the band, Radiolocation (i.e., Navy radar) operations
and SRS activities (including communications vital to the Space Shuttle
and International Space Station programs), motivated the U.S. position.

Coming into the Conference, the U.S. adhered to a proposal for making no
change to the dish size. The Europeans and the Arab Group supported
proposals that would allow a reduction in antenna size coupled with
power limits to reduce interference. The power limit levels favored by
Europe and the Arabs were unacceptable to the United States. In addition
to the technical values in this approach, the U.S. also focused on the
politically-charged issue of where the "protection point" would begin,
geographically, for Naval radar operations in maritime environments.

These issues were resolved through a compromise agreement, in which the
U.S. agreed to an approach with stricter power levels than those
previously suggested by the Europeans or industry proponents of reduced
dish sizes. Under the agreement, FSS dishes in the band can be no
smaller than 1.2 meters, and power levels cannot exceed a limit of --115
dBW/m^2^ more than 1 percent of the time, coupled with an acceptable
definition of the geographic area to be protected. Although the U.S.
Delegation did not succeed, against overwhelming opposition, in its
original "no change" proposal, it did succeed in negotiating power
limits that will protect U.S. government systems operating in the band.
Therefore, the compromise met the core U.S. objective of protecting
these systems from harmful interference by FSS operations.

4.  *Earth Stations On Board Vessels (ESVs) (Agenda Item 1.26)*

The purpose of this item was to provide an international framework for
the operation of satellite ground stations on moving ships. Such ships
can be commercial, such as cruise ships, or governmental. This issue was
somewhat complicated by the fact that the United States and other
proponents sought permission for ESVs to communicate from mobile
positions (that is, moving ships) up to space stations in the Fixed
Satellite Service (which normally involves stationary ground stations).

The three major regional groups---CITEL (the Americas), CEPT (Europe)
and APT (Asia-Pacific)---all submitted proposals allowing ESVs to
operate with FSS satellites, while the Arab Group and Iran countered
with proposals to designate ESVs as Maritime Mobile Satellite Service
(MMSS) operations. The final result was along the lines of the
American/European/Asian proposal, in part because of the reluctance to
add an MMSS or MSS allocation in the 5.9-6.4 GHz band. The Conference
did, however, accept a footnote submitted by the Arabs to the effect
that ESV operation would be considered secondary MMSS in the Region 1
countries that subscribed to the footnote.

5.  *Public Protection and Disaster Relief Spectrum (Agenda Item 1.3)*

Going into WRC-2003, several administrations wanted the ITU to identify
certain bands for countries to use for emergency response radio systems
employed during disaster relief and emergency situations. The goal was
to achieve harmonization of these bands across national borders and to
achieve economies of scale for manufacturers. The United States
supported efforts to spotlight disaster relief but opposed formal
identification of bands, under Article 5, for such uses. The U.S.
position was that formal identification was unnecessary, since
individual countries had already allocated various different bands for
these uses. Moreover, a formal identification would limit the
flexibility of the United States and other countries to utilize spectrum
for these purposes in such a way as to meet local and national
interests. Further, band identification can be particularly risky for
U.S. national security interests. Some identification scenarios would
have resulted in harmful interference to U.S. security activities
worldwide.

During the Conference, an agreement was reached on a resolution
providing non-binding guidance to administrations and manufacturers,
without formally identifying bands under Article 5. This met the U.S.
objective of avoiding any formal identification. The United States also
succeeded in suppressing the original resolution on this issue, ensuring
there will be no further WRC action in future conferences.

### **1.4 Resolution 4** 

During the last week of WRC-2003, delegates not only worked to hammer
out final compromises on the major issues discussed above but also
grappled with issues that came to the fore in the final days. The first
of these issues was a proposal by some Arab Group countries and Iran to
fix a time limit on the viability of satellite orbital slot assignments.
The proposal would have set a time limit, originally suggested as being
within a range of 20-30 years, for satellite systems---including
operating ones and plans to launch new generations of satellites. In
other words, existing commercial systems would have a window of up to 30
years in which to launch and operate their systems, through single or
multiple generations, before possibly having to relinquish their rights
to that orbital position. The proponents proposed to exempt some
"national" systems and to add other possible loopholes which might be
attractive to emerging economies.

The proposal represented a direct threat to the viability of commercial
satellite systems. The U.S. has long supported Resolution 2, which
resolves that the registration and use of space radiocommunication
services should not provide any permanent priority for any individual
country. Resolution 2, does not, however, set any fixed time limit. Any
such limit would pose a threat to the ability of commercial satellite
systems to win and retain investment, imperiling recovery of the U.S.
satellite industry. When it appeared that the issue was headed for a
floor debate, the U.S. Delegation rapidly and effectively mobilized,
utilizing its active outreach program to communicate the threat's
seriousness to the global satellite industry. The U.S. led the floor
debate against the proposal, joined by an overwhelming show of support
from many countries, including developing countries. The result of
debate on the floor during the penultimate night of the Conference was
acceptable to the United States.

**1.5 Future Agenda Items**

The Conference also approved a resolution setting a draft agenda for the
next WRC, which is slated tentatively for 2007. The U.S. Delegation
succeeded in placing all of its priority items on that agenda. Moreover,
the final resolution includes fewer than half the number of agenda items
that were addressed at WRC-2003. This reverses the trend of recent WRCs,
which had seen a progressive doubling in the agenda size. This result is
in keeping with the goals of the United States---and of the ITU
itself---to reduce the cost and scope of WRCs in the future.

# 1.6 Political Issues {#political-issues .Heading-0}

WRC-2003 was the first major multilateral treaty-level conference in
which the United States participated following the commencement of
Coalition operations in Iraq. The potential existed for delegations from
some administrations opposed to U.S. interests to politicize the
Conference in an attempt to block or discredit the United States. This
did not develop as a major distraction at WRC-2003. To an overwhelming
extent, delegations confined their interventions to specific points of
discussion related to agenda items.

The lone, pointed exception was a Cuban protest of U.S. broadcasting
operations, made during the opening plenary session. Delegation members
from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria made frequent interventions on the
floor during plenary sessions, but they generally confined them to
radiocommunication issues. There was no verbal exploitation of issues
relating to Coalition activities. Nor were there political direct
attacks on the floor on other administrations, such as Israel.

Delegations generally observed appropriate decorum and confined
discussions to the pressing spectrum issues before them. This allowed
the delegates to achieve the work of the Conference. Credit for this
should go to the serious sense of purpose of the vast majority of
delegates, as well as to the Conference Chairman for her professional
effectiveness.

**2. BACKGROUND**

This section provides a more detailed discussion of the purposes of the
WRC, as well as the events and preparations leading up to the
Conference.

# 2.1 Introduction and Overview {#introduction-and-overview .Heading-0 .unnumbered}

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) convened the World
Radiocommunication Conference 2003 (WRC-2003) in Geneva, Switzerland,
from June 9 to July 4, 2003. Delegates met to consider 48 agenda items,
a precedent-setting agenda in terms of its scope. A total of 2,334
participants attended WRC-2003, representing delegations from ITU-member
countries around the world. The Conference was held at the International
Conference Center of Geneva, adjacent to the ITU's headquarters. WRC
conferences have been convened by the ITU on a periodic and regular
basis---commonly every three years---either in Geneva or another host
city.[^1]

Ambassador Janice Obuchowski led the U.S. Delegation to WRC-2003. The
delegation consisted of 167 individuals, divided into senior advisors,
government delegates and industry advisors. In addition, the Delegation
was supported by a network of U.S. government and private sector
experts, who remained at home, but were in constant communication with
Ambassador Obuchowski and other Delegation personnel.

The agenda for WRC-2003 was drafted three years earlier, at WRC-2000 and
was approved by the ITU Council in 2000. The unprecedented, large number
of agenda items to be addressed posed a challenge to the U.S.
Delegation, other delegations and the secretariat of the ITU-R, which
convened the Conference. The densely packed agenda called for a
disciplined and workmanlike approach to this WRC; there would be no time
or latitude in the schedule for disruptive debate over extraneous
political issues if the work of the Conference were to be completed. The
U.S. Delegation, led by Ambassador Obuchowski, dedicated itself to such
a disciplined approach through careful and thorough preparation prior to
arrival in Geneva. As the Conference proceeded, this business-like tone
prevailed, thanks largely to the highly professional and confident
leadership of Conference Chairman Veena Rawat of Canada, as well as of
many Committee and Subcommittee Chairmen. The result was a comprehensive
and successful effort to address and resolve all 48 agenda items.

# 2.2. U.S. Objectives for the Conference {#u.s.-objectives-for-the-conference .Heading-0}

The U.S. Delegation's objectives for WRC-2003 were to provide frequency
allocations for new commercial services, protect existing spectrum for
governmental and, particularly, national security purposes, and to
assure a manageable agenda for the next WRC and future Conferences. The
objectives of the United States for WRC-2003, taken in order of the
Conference agenda, were:

\-- To encourage the elimination of national footnotes where possible;
to remove U.S. from footnote No. 5.389D and to add Guam to footnote No.
5.386 in order to bring Guam into compliance with the Radio Regulations
(Agenda Item 1.1).

\--To modify the Radio Regulations to permit an ITU-R approved digital
modulation system to be employed in shortwave broadcasting bands (Agenda
Item 1.2).

\--To recognize the importance of disaster relief and public protection
systems but to preserve administrations' flexibility to determine
approaches to spectrum use for those systems (Agenda Item 1.3).

\--To review the current relationship between Fixed Satellite Service
(FSS) and Aeronautical Radionavigation Service (ARNS) in the 5091-5150
MHz band, ensuring that FSS does not cause interference to ARNS (Agenda
Item 1.4).

\--To secure global mobile allocations for Radio Local Area Networks
(RLANS), including "Wi-Fi" systems, in the 5150-5725 MHz range, securing
provisions to allow the maximum amount of outdoor use possible, given
interference mitigation techniques pioneered in the U.S. (Agenda Item
1.5).

\--To reach a consensus on definitions in Article 1 for out-of-band and
spurious emissions (Agenda Item 1.8.1).

\--To avoid any change in the Radio Regulations for protection of
passive services, which would overly constrain active services (Agenda
Item 1.8.2).

\--To maintain no change in the applicability of Article 13 (on safety
and distress communications systems), given that Global Maritime
Distress and Safety Service (GMDSS) has not yet been universally adopted
(Agenda Item 1.9).

\--To adopt measures that would prevent exhaustion of Maritime Mobile
Service Identities (MMSIs) and to ensure that administrations have
sufficient flexibility to distribute them to all parties that require
them (Agenda Item 1.10.1).

\--To secure a secondary allocation for Aeronautical Mobile Satellite
Service (AMSS) in the 14-14.5 gigahertz band (Agenda Item 1.11).

\--To add a primary Space Research Service (SRS) (Earth-to-space)
allocation to the Table of Frequency Allocations and eliminate the
requirement for Article 9.21 coordination (Agenda Item 1.12).

\-- To eliminate the inter-satellite service allocation in the 32.0 --
32.3 GHz band to ensure protection of the reception of extremely
sensitive signals from deep space (Agenda Item 1.12).

\-- To obtain a primary SRS allocation in the 14.8 -- 15.3 GHz band with
suitable limits to ensure protection of fixed service operations in the
band (Agenda Item 1.12).

\-- To obtain a primary SRS allocation in the 25.5 -- 27.0 GHz band
(Agenda Item 1.12).

\-- To remove footnote 5.551A in the band 35.5 -36 GHz, which had a
negative impact on the Earth-Exploration Satellite Service (active).

\--To expand the availability of High-Altitude Platform Service (HAPS)
in the 28 and 31 GHz bands in additional countries, and to remove the
priority of HAPS over FSS in the 47/48 GHz bands (Agenda Item 1.13).

\--To support allowing limited safety-related voice calling in the
12.290 MHz and 16.420 MHz maritime bands (Agenda Item 1.14).

\--To support allowing limited Digital Selective Calling (DSC) for
routine communications on distress and safety calling channels if no
other means are available (Agenda Item 1.14).

\--To allow the current High Frequency (HF) Morse telegraphy and
narrow-band direct‑printing channels in Appendix 17 Part B to be used
for digital maritime services (e.g., HF e-mail) (Agenda Item 1.14).

\--To protect Aeronautical Radionavigation Service (ARNS) in the
1164-1215 MHz band with an equivalent power flux density (pfd) level not
exceeding --121.5 dBW/m^2^/MHz for all Radionavigation Satellite Service
(RNSS) systems (Agenda Item 1.15).

\--To establish an informal consultation process so that administrations
with viable and real RNSS systems are responsible to protect ARNS
operations (Agenda Item 1.15).

\--To avoid application of formal, Article 9 coordination procedures
retroactively to RNSS systems already operating (Agenda Item 1.15).

\--To avoid a pfd limit on existing RNSS systems in the 1215-1300 MHz
band (Agenda Item 1.15).

\--To obtain a worldwide allocation around 1.4 GHz for non-geostationary
Mobile Satellite Service ("Little LEO") feeder links (Agenda Item 1.16).

\--To upgrade the Radiolocation service to a primary allocation in the
2900-3100 MHz band, with a footnote to protect the Radionavigation
service from interference (Agenda Item 1.17).

\--To ensure that introduction of a primary allocation in Region 1 for
Fixed Service in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band will not constrain the
introduction of Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS) in Region 2 (Agenda
Item 1.18).

\--To ensure no change in Article 22 regarding the misapplication of
epfd limits on non-geostationary satellite systems for the protection of
geostationary satellite networks (Agenda Item 1.19).

\--To Suppress Resolution 737 calling for more studies of Terrestrial
Wireless Interactive Multimedia (TWIM) systems, given that no regulatory
impediments to TWIM have been identified (Agenda Item 1.21).

\--To support further studies to consider detailed requirements for the
future development of IMT-2000 terrestrial wireless systems and systems
beyond IMT-2000 (Agenda Item 1.22).

\--To allocate an additional 200 kHz to the Amateur Service in the band
7100-7300 kHz in Regions 1 and 3, the upper 100 kHz of which would be
shared between Amateur, Fixed and Mobile Services (except Aeronautical
Mobile (R) Service) (Agenda Item 1.23).

\--To reallocate 200 kHz for the Broadcasting Service in Regions 1 and 3
as a result of realignment of Amateur and Broadcasting Services at 7 MHz
(Agenda Item 1.23).

\--To prevent any antenna size reduction at 13.75-14 GHz that would
cause harmful interference to Radiolocation and SRS in that band (Agenda
Item 1.24).

\--To identify spectrum above 18.58 GHz for High-Density Fixed Satellite
Service (HDFSS) without constraining the use of these bands by other FSS
applications or other co-primary services (Agenda Item 1.25).

\--To obtain global recognition for operation of earth stations on board
vessels (ESVs) with the addition of footnotes for the 6 GHz and 14 GHZ
FSS bands (Agenda Item 1.26).

\--To protect the use of BSS networks in Region 2 that employ minimum
antenna sizes of 45 cm (Agenda Item 1.27).

\--To permit the use of the 108-117.975 MHz band for Ground-Based
Augmentation Systems and surveillance systems via a footnote, and to
adopt a new resolution requiring studies and limiting implementation of
surveillance systems below 112 MHz until studies are complete (Agenda
Item 1.28).

\--To protect existing services in the 1518-1525 MHz and 1.6 GHz bands
from interference by additional allocations for MSS in Regions 1 and 3;
to delete existing allocations for Region 2 (Agenda Item 1.31).

\--To affirm the existing satellite power flux‑density limits in Table
21-4 of Article 21 for the 37.5-42.5 GHz bands (Agenda Item 1.32).

\--To support a resolution calling for a consultation process for power
limits at frequencies just above 42.5 GHz, in order to provide
flexibility for FSS (Agenda Item 1.32).

\--To achieve less restrictive power flux density limits on HAPS
services, in keeping with the findings of ITU-R studies (Agenda Item
1.33).

\--To protect licensees in the 2630-2655 MHz band, and future use of the
band, from potential harmful interference from NGSO BSS (Sound) networks
operating in the band (Agenda Item 1.34).

\--To add an allocation of 200 kHz in Region 2 for High Frequency (HF)
broadcasting in the 4-10 MHz bands, with 200 kHz in Regions 1 and 3
(Agenda Item 1.36).

\--To oppose any change in allocations in the 420-470 MHz band to
accommodate active EESS operations, given studies that have shown
incompatibility of EESS (active) with existing Radiolocation Services
(Agenda Item 1.38).

\--To support no changes to the Radio Regulations regarding telemetry,
tracking & control (TT&C) links below 17 GHz for FCC systems above 17
GHz, since FSS systems may use any FSS allocation to perform TT&C
functions (Agenda Item 1.39).

\--To oppose setting a time limit for viability of frequency assignments
for satellite networks (Agenda Item 4).

\--To limit the number of agenda items for WRC-2007 and future
conferences, and to ensure that agenda items are focused on clearly
defined issues (Agenda Item 7.2).

# 2.3. Conference Preparatory Efforts {#conference-preparatory-efforts .Heading-0}

Successful participation in a WRC requires painstaking and thorough
preparation. This section outlines the process by which the U.S.
government, advised by the private sector, prepared its positions and
coordinated them with those of other countries, regionally and globally.
The positive tenor of the preparatory process was set early by the
principals involved: Chairman Michael Powell of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), Ambassador David Gross representing the
Department of State, and Assistant Secretary of Commerce Nancy Victory
representing the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). They committed their agencies to fast-track
preparation and close cooperation. These objectives were met in the
preparatory phase of the WRC-2003 effort.

NTIA and the FCC both developed Conference proposals, in coordination
with the Department of State. In general, the NTIA approach involved an
interagency process and incorporated national interests, including space
exploration, national defense and homeland security, and other
government missions. The FCC's process, while also reflecting these
national interests, involved input from the public, including the
commercial telecommunications industry. Once the separate consultation
processes were complete, NTIA and the FCC jointly reviewed, coordinated
and approved the government and industry proposals. They also published
joint public notices on all proposals developed prior to formation of
the accredited Delegation. After a final review process, including input
from public comments and other administrations and organizations, NTIA
and the FCC jointly forwarded the United States WRC-2003 proposals to
the Department of State for submission to the International
Telecommunication Union.

*2.3.1 NTIA's Preparation Activities*

NTIA was responsible for managing the development of U.S. Government
agency proposals for the Conference. Coordination and development of
these proposals was done within the Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS)
of the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), chaired by NTIA.
Through the RCS, representatives from the federal agencies met to
discuss, plan, and propose regulatory and allocation changes to meet
present and future requirements in response to WRC-2003 agenda items.
The FCC is a liaison member of the RCS.

RCS began its preparatory work in October 2000, shortly after the
conclusion of WRC-2000. The RCS formed working groups to develop and
pre-coordinate the initial proposals grouped by WRC agenda item. There
were individual working groups dealing with the space science services,
maritime and aeronautical services, Radionavigation Satellite Service
and the Mobile Satellite Service and future conference agenda items. RCS
prepared preliminary views on each agenda item during 2001 and followed
up with its proposals during 2002. RCS-approved preliminary views and
proposals were presented to the IRAC for approval. After NTIA reviewed
and approved the proposals, they were forwarded to the FCC for
consultation. RCS and its working groups also reviewed and responded to
industry-developed proposals from the FCC.

All draft preliminary views and proposals, once approved by NTIA, were
posted on the NTIA website.

*2.3.2 The Role of the FCC*

In the WRC-03 preparatory effort, the FCC was responsible for advocating
the public interest consistent with U.S. policies, rules and
regulations. To that end, the FCC focused its efforts on facilitating
public participation in the preparatory process and on maximizing the
transparency of that process. To provide a public forum in which public
views and recommendations could be expressed, the FCC, in accordance
with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, organized
the WRC-03 Advisory Committee (WAC), chaired by Brian Fontes. The WAC
had an open membership structure. Its meetings featured broad
participation by members of the public and included regular attendance
by representatives of other federal government agencies.

The WAC held 13 meetings in preparation for the WRC-03 and played an
integral role in the U.S. domestic preparatory activities. The WAC
provided the FCC with recommendations on almost every agenda item. To
further promote public participation in the preparatory process, the FCC
carried out a Public Notice process, soliciting comments from the public
on all recommendations received from the WAC. The FCC also implemented a
website that provided information on WRC‑03 preparatory activities.

The FCC also sought to increase coordination with the Executive Branch
agencies. The FCC participated, as an observer, in the proceedings of
the RCS. In that role, the FCC ensured that the IRAC and RCS were
provided with the recommendations received from the WAC, so that these
recommendations could be considered in the formulation of Executive
Branch positions on WRC-03 issues. IRAC's comments and proposals, in
turn, were provided to the WAC for consideration, and placed on Public
Notice for comment.

The FCC formulated its own draft positions and proposals only after
taking into account the WAC recommendations and comments received in
response to the Public Notice. Based on the experience of the past WRCs,
the FCC recognized that regional support has become increasingly
important in driving a Conference's outcome. The FCC actively
participated on U.S. delegations to meetings of the Inter-American
Telecommunication Commission committee (CITEL PCC II) that is
responsible for WRC preparations in our region. Additionally, the FCC
made personnel and resource commitments to participate in European,
Asian-Pacific, African and Caribbean regional preparations for the
WRC-03. As part of that effort, the FCC participated in 12 European,
four Asian-Pacific, one African and one Caribbean regional meeting on
WRC‑03 preparations. The FCC provided detailed reports on these meetings
to the WAC and other federal government agencies. These reports enhanced
the U.S. preparatory efforts by considerably improving the understanding
of foreign views, positions and proposals.

Upon formulating its draft positions and proposals, the FCC worked
closely with NTIA to reconcile any differences and to develop a unified
U.S. position for the WRC‑03. In cases where the FCC and NTIA had
difficulties reconciling their positions, the agencies worked through
the Department of State to develop a solution. Once finalized, the FCC
and NTIA officially transmitted the WRC‑2003 U.S. proposals to the
Department of State for its consideration. The Department of State
forwarded these proposals to the ITU.

*2.3.3 Department of State Preparation Activities*

The International Telecommunication Advisory
Committee--Radiocommunication Activity (ITAC-R) is chartered by the
General Services Administration (GSA) to the Department of State as an
Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The
Department of State-led ITAC-R was a key component of the U.S.
preparatory process for the Conference itself, and of the U.S. efforts
to work with CITEL to submit Inter-American Proposals (IAPs) for the
region to the Conference. The ITAC-R provides a mechanism to assist the
U.S. Government in preparing for international meetings and negotiations
on radio telecommunication issues.

To begin coordinating the work of Conference preparations at an earlier
stage, before a Head of Delegation was appointed, the Department of
State convened a series of intra-governmental meetings with
representatives from the Department of Defense, the FCC, NASA and NTIA.
This group had multiple functions. Among other tasks, it reconciled
differences in positions and proposals on Conference issues at an early
date, so that U.S. proposals could be discussed at bilateral, regional,
and international meetings leading up to the WRC. It also reviewed the
potential Conference structure and proposals for WRC committee
chairpersons, allowing the United States to participate in discussions
of these issues at international WRC preparatory meetings. The group
also began a list of potential U.S. spokespersons for WRC agenda items,
determining which agencies should have the lead on particular agenda
items.

Additionally, the Department of State coordinated "meetings of
principals" to ensure high levels of interagency oversight of the WRC
preparatory process at an earlier stage. This group reviewed possible
nominees to recommend to the White House to head the U.S. Delegation. It
also discerned the resources that could be committed by the various
agencies to the preparatory process and to the WRC itself. Finally, it
defined and targeted unresolved issues and set a time frame within which
to resolve them. The latter role ensured more effective representation
of U.S. views in the meetings that led up to the WRC.

The Department of State also hosted ITAC-R National Committee meetings
to provide a forum for all spectrum users, government and private, to
come together before the U.S. delegation was formed to discuss and
advise the Department of State on Conference issues. These meetings were
to supplement the FCC and NTIA preparatory processes and to facilitate
debate that might otherwise have been precluded under FACA rules.

The Department of State also played a key role in preparing Ambassador
Obuchowski for her role as Head of Delegation. Department of State staff
assembled a briefing book that addressed every agenda item to be
resolved at WRC-2003. The Department of State helped organize small
delegations, which included Ambassador Obuchowski and experts from the
key government agencies, for an aggressive pre-WRC outreach effort
covering more than 40 countries and regional organizations. The
Department of State arranged for discussions with ITU senior officials
in Geneva and helped to plan the Ambassador\'s participation in regional
meetings that included Europe (in Portugal), the Americas (in Florida),
Africa (in Gabon) and Asia (in Japan). These discussions with
international partners were key to the U.S. success at the Conference.
The U.S. Mission in Geneva expertly supported all the arrangements for
the U.S. Delegation and U.S. activities both before and during the
Conference.

A pre-Delegation group of inter-agency participants was recruited from
the Department of State, NTIA, FCC, the Department of Defense, NASA, and
the Federal Aviation Administration to support Ambassador Obuchowski on
an extensive round of pre-Conference bilateral and multilateral meetings
that encompassed seven trips, 15 countries and four months. The group
met with foreign administrations at regional meetings and in-country
bilaterals. The schedule was challenging but provided invaluable
insights into the positions of other regions and countries in advance of
the Conference.

At the same time, in Washington, D.C., the Delegation began meeting on a
weekly basis shortly after the Ambassador's appointment. The meetings
leading up to the Conference were instrumental in organizing the
Delegation, plotting strategies, and assigning tasks, such as the
completion of position papers and talking points on agenda items.

*2.3.4 Federal Aviation Administration and ICAO Preparations*

Prior to WRC-2003, the FAA, working with both NTIA and the FCC, fully
participated in the working group of the International Civil Aviation
Administration (ICAO) that developed ICAO's positions for the WRC. ICAO
is the international, United Nations-affiliated agency tasked with the
mission of providing an international framework for the safety of civil
aviation. ICAO participates in WRCs to ensure that international
spectrum allocations and policies continue to support the needs of
ICAO's 188 contracting states, which rely on spectrum resources for
aeronautical safety services.

FAA representatives escorted key members of the U.S. Delegation to
Montreal on April 15, 2003, for a meeting with ICAO to coordinate final
U.S. WRC positions with ICAO positions. In addition to the Delegation's
ICAO meeting, FAA hosted additional meetings between ICAO officials and
representatives of U.S. airlines and the International Air Transport
Association to remain "on target" in pursuit of civil aviation
interests. FAA representatives on the U.S. Delegation to WRC-2003 also
met with the ICAO delegation to the Conference, as well as airline
representatives, on a daily basis during the Conference, to coordinate
developments and discuss strategies. In addition, the FAA participated
in the weekly aviation meetings of ICAO member states, in order to
solidify or gain support for U.S. positions at the Conference.

#  {#section-18 .Heading-0}

# 2.4 International Preparations {#international-preparations .Heading-0}

*2.4.1 Conference Structure*

The Informal Group for WRC, an international group that met several
times under the leadership of Francois Rancy of France, was able to
frame a consensus structure for the upcoming WRC. The structure itself
originated with Veena Rawat of Canada in the spring of 2002. The United
States suggested several changes, which she accepted. The principles
used were that there would not be a strict regulatory versus allocation
split among agenda items assigned to Committees 4 and 5 (COM 4 and COM
5), as had been common practice. Rather, issues which were largely
regulatory would be assigned to Committee 4, and allocation issues could
be in either committee (but not both). This principle would allow a
balanced workload between the two committees.

Two issues were unresolved during the informal process preparing for the
Conference: The United States and others proposed that Agenda Item 1.26
(ESVs) be in COM 4 and Agenda Item 1.11 (AMSS) be in COM 5. In order to
link these together, other countries (some Arab countries, with support
from chairperson of the Informal Group) wanted to treat them together in
COM 4. This conflict was partially resolved at the beginning of the
Conference by putting 1.26 in COM 4 but treating 1.11 initially in COM5
and then referring it to COM 4. As expected, this arrangement allowed
certain countries to hold up Agenda Item 1.11 results until near the end
of the Conference.

*2.4.2 Conference Leadership*

The Informal Group also prepared a well-received list of committee and
working group chairpersons. For the 5 GHz and space science issues
(Agenda Item 1.5), the United States had proposed a U.S. chairman.
However, Japan also put forward a proposed chairman. The Japanese
candidature was linked to another working group chairmanship, which was
allocated to the Arab region. The United States negotiated a compromise
with Japan, in which a subgroup was set up to handle the space science
issues. Subsequently, this was re-established as a separate working
group with the U.S. chairman.

# 2.5. Development and Submission of Final U.S. Proposals {#development-and-submission-of-final-u.s.-proposals .Heading-0}

NTIA and the FCC finalized draft Conference proposals based on the
priorities and objectives identified in their respective WRC-03
preparatory processes. After reconciling any diverging views or
outstanding issues, NTIA and the FCC posted accepted proposals on their
respective WRC-2003 websites for information and further consideration
by the public. Following a final review process, including input from
the public, NTIA and the FCC jointly forwarded these WRC-03 proposals to
the Department of State for submission to the ITU.

The United States submitted 43 single-country proposal documents
containing more than 200 specific proposals to the ITU. In many cases,
however, the United States did not submit single country proposals,
working instead through CITEL. Through this consultation process, the
United States became a signatory to 38 Inter-American Proposal (IAP)
documents, containing more than 237 specific proposals supported by
multiple CITEL administrations. Thirty-four of the IAP proposal
documents were essentially duplicates of the U.S. single-country
proposals. CITEL, as a whole, submitted 42 proposal documents containing
279 specific proposals to the ITU. This information is summarized in the
table below.

  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------
                                         Proposal         Specific
                                         Documents        Proposals

  U.S. Single Country Proposals          43               More than 200
  submitted to ITU                                        

  U.S. Single County/CITEL IAP           34               
  duplicates                                              

  US-supported CITEL IAPs submitted to   38               More than 237
  ITU                                                     

  Total CITEL IAPs submitted to ITU      42               279

  Total US-supported proposals submitted 47               More than 250
  to the ITU                                              
  -------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------

Following recommendations generated after WRC-2000, a concerted and
highly successful effort was made to work closely with CITEL, resulting
in numerous IAPs that significantly or totally mirrored U.S. proposals.
The United States should sustain this hemispheric cooperation within
CITEL, wherever possible, in preparations for the next WRC.

The U.S. proposals, accompanied by position papers and external and
internal talking-point documents, were made available to all U.S.
delegates for review, comment and reference on the Delegation's secure,
password-protected website, which was hosted by a NASA support
contractor.

# 3.0. THE CONFERENCE {#the-conference .Heading-0}

#  {#section-19 .Heading-0}

# This section details the organization and functions of the U.S. Delegation, exploring several issues, such as communications support, which aided the Delegation's efforts. It also explains the organization of the Conference itself and relates the dynamics present during the early days of the WRC. {#this-section-details-the-organization-and-functions-of-the-u.s.-delegation-exploring-several-issues-such-as-communications-support-which-aided-the-delegations-efforts.-it-also-explains-the-organization-of-the-conference-itself-and-relates-the-dynamics-present-during-the-early-days-of-the-wrc. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-20 .Heading-0}

# 3.1. Organization, Functions and Support of the U.S. Delegation {#organization-functions-and-support-of-the-u.s.-delegation .Heading-0}

Ambassador Janice Obuchowski was appointed Head of the U.S. Delegation
to WRC-2003 by President George W. Bush and served as the United States
representative. Three alternate U.S. representatives, Mr. Frank Williams
(Department of State), Mr. Jim Vorhies (NTIA) and Mr. Alex Roytblat
(FCC) assisted her as vice-chairpersons. The Delegation coordinator was
Mr. Kevin "Spanky" Kirsch (Department of Defense), while Ms. Anne
Jillson (Department of State) served as executive director. Mr. Scott
Rutherford (Department of Defense) served as security coordinator, and
Mr. Chris Murphy (FCC) was coordinator of the Outreach Program. Mr.
Steve Mirmina was detailed by NASA to work with the coordinators and
vice chairpersons on the Ambassador's executive staff.

A U.S. Government spokesperson was selected for each Conference
committee, working group and agenda item. The organization of the U.S.
Delegation is shown in Annex A, and a listing of committee chairpersons
and agenda item spokespersons is provided in Annex B.

The United States sent 167 individuals to the Conference in official
Delegation capacities. In addition, a number of other U.S. citizens
participated in the Conference in other capacities. The United States
was fortunate, as in previous years, to be able to field a large
Delegation of competent and knowledgeable people. This enabled the
Delegation to participate in all of the dozens of daily meetings,
particularly in the crucial final decision-making days and hours of the
Conference. Smaller delegations could not contemplate participating in
every one of these often simultaneous meetings. This was very important
in furthering and protecting U.S. interests.

A complete listing of the U.S. Delegation and other U.S. Participants at
WRC-2003 is given in Annex C.

During the course of the Conference, the Head of Delegation sent four
official cables from Geneva detailing the progress of the U.S.
Delegation and requesting permission to sign the Final Acts of the
Conference. Also, the Head of Delegation conducted four conference calls
with selected members of the "Home Team" of U.S. Government officials of
various agencies, who were assigned to provide support from Washington,
DC, during the Conference. These calls were important in keeping all of
the constituent agencies informed about progress toward U.S. goals and
provided ideal "sign posts" for assessment and strategizing. After the
Conference, the Head of Delegation prepared a draft cable which
summarized the results of the Conference and formed the basis for this
Delegation report.

3.1.1. *Administrative and Facilities Support at the Conference*

Once the location of the WRC-2003 was confirmed as Geneva,
Switzerland,[^2] the Department of State ---working with the U.S.
Mission in Geneva---obtained commitments from the Geneva Conference
Center to rent a large room for the duration of the Conference. This
served as the Delegation's working room. The Delegation also obtained a
smaller office in the same building for use by Ambassador Obuchowski.
The Delegation's offices were conveniently located in a building
adjacent to the Conference Center.[^3] Since there is a wide range of
hotels in Geneva, and many Delegation members had previous experience
there, it was decided not to try to place all the members of the
Delegation in one hotel. The U.S. Mission in Geneva reserved blocks of
rooms in the four hotels which were offered to members of the
Delegation.

Given the large size of the U.S. Delegation, Delegation meetings were
held daily in Room B, in the basement of the nearby ITU headquarters. A
member of the Department of State\'s Office of International Conferences
managed the Delegation office and assisted members of the Delegation. He
was assisted by staff from the U.S. Mission in Geneva\'s Conference
Services Office. Further, the Federal Communications Commission supplied
a computer support person and the Department of Defense provided
organizational support.

The facilities met the needs of the Delegation. Computer support and
provisioning of office supplies were very good. This support level was
instrumental in getting the Delegation's operations running during the
early days of the Conference.

*3.1.2 Communications Support at the Conference*

The U.S. Delegation's communications objectives for the Conference were
(1) to allow the Head of Delegation and other Delegation officers to
maintain timely contact with each other, (2) to give Delegation members
quick access to the information they needed, (3) to maintain required
communications abilities with Home Team support resources in the United
States, and (4) to keep interested members of the U.S. public abreast of
important developments. To achieve these objectives, the following six
tools were employed:

-   Electronic access to documents

-   Email

-   A proprietary Delegation website

-   Instant Messaging

-   Wireless network access technology

-   Cellular phones

[Electronic Documents]{.underline}. Using electronic copies of documents
proved very convenient for coordinating action and decisions on
documents. The MS Office editing features allowed Delegation members to
make corrections and edits on documents and distribute them to
colleagues, who could track the edits and see who had made them.
Concerns that working documents could be leaked to individuals outside
the Delegation were mitigated by emphasizing the responsibility of each
Delegation member for information security and by, on some occasions,
using a password protection feature of MS Office. Another security
concern involved the possibility that U.S. delegates might use computers
outside the Delegation offices (or otherwise not under the control of
the Delegation) and potentially leave a saved copy on that machine after
use. For future conferences, guidelines and information-security
procedures covering electronic paper trails would be advisable.

[Use of Email]{.underline}. Email was the primary method employed to
send information and documents to U.S. delegates, all of whom had access
to email using either a personal laptop computer or one of the
Delegation workstations. One shortcoming that was encountered was the
failure of some email address lists to include all the destinations that
were sometimes required on any given email. There were no officially
created email groups, and every delegate had to compose his or her own
groups on a case-by-case basis.

[Delegation Website]{.underline}. The website concept was built upon the
design used for WRC-2000. NASA graciously hosted the website, as it had
in 2000, and provided Web support. Core features of the website included
lists of all documents pertaining to every agenda item, document posting
and retrieval capability, a calendar of meetings and events, messaging
capability, links to ITU and other websites, polls, updates on the
outreach program, and U.S. delegate information. Two additional features
were created for 2003 to provide service to the delegates: a photo
section and a DVD listing. To safeguard the content on the site, access
was protected via secure socket layer (SSL) and the use of passwords.
The passwords were generic, multi-user passwords, not individually
assigned ones.

The website was continually modified and updated throughout the duration
of the WRC. It was accessed, on average, by 46 delegates per day, a
figure that roughly translates as daily website use by about one-third
of the core Delegation. Perhaps one of the reasons more delegates did
not use the website more frequently was that it was made fully available
just prior to the start of the WRC, and not all delegates may have been
entirely aware of its features or method of access. One solution to this
lack of familiarity may be to establish a permanent, passcode-protected
U.S. website for all ITU-R activities. It could then be used not only
during the WRC, but also during the intervening preparation periods.
Individual passwords could be assigned, rather than generic ones, in
order to enhance information security.

[Use of Instant Messaging]{.underline}. The Delegation decided to try
using a "chat" tool (MS Instant Messenger) to enhance communications
capabilities during the Conference. The intent was to allow delegates to
pass important information to each other in real time. This method
reduced the number of written messages passed to the spokesperson and
necessitated fewer physical conversations (which attract attention from
other delegations) between Delegation members during meetings.
Additionally, it allowed a U.S. delegate to consult with other
Delegation members attending different meetings. WRC-2003 marked the
first time instant messaging was used by the U.S. Delegation, and the
capability proved very helpful. Use of messaging expanded rapidly. In
the beginning, only a small number of U.S. delegates were using the
feature, but by the end of the Conference, some 60 delegates were using
it.

[Wireless Network Access]{.underline}. The ITU-R went to great lengths
to provide a wireless LAN environment for all delegates. This was
accomplished by using equipment employing the 802.11a and 802.11b Wi-Fi
standards. All U.S. delegates were encouraged strongly to bring a laptop
computer with a wireless LAN card to the Conference. This allowed them
to access not only the password-protected Delegation website, but also
the ITU's website, on which all Conference documents were posted.
Moreover, it allowed U.S. delegates to employ email and Instant
Messaging tools for real-time communications anywhere within the
Conference center and adjacent offices (including the Delegation
office). While the wireless LAN held the potential for security
concerns, it proved a great enabler to the work of the Delegation.
Conference documents were frequently available on the ITU-R website
before paper copies were available. Moreover, a very high percentage of
the U.S. Delegation did not receive paper copies of documents at all, as
a result of the ITU-R's policy of not printing paper versions for all
the members of larger delegations. The wireless LAN proved the only way
for many U.S. delegates to gain convenient access to Conference
documents. Delegates to future Conferences are strongly urged to come
equipped for any wireless LAN technology supported at future WRCs.

[Cellular Phones]{.underline}. All U.S. delegates were urged to acquire
a GSM-compatible cell phone to use during the WRC. Information was given
to delegates on how to buy, lease or borrow handsets. Many of the
delegates representing U.S. government agencies received phones on loan
from Ericsson or Nokia. A large portion of the Delegation did come
equipped with cell phones that could be used in Geneva. The Delegation
worked to compile a list of cell phone numbers for all of its members.
Mobile voice connectivity proved to be indispensable to the Delegation
throughout the Conference. Many of the other delegations---particularly
those from countries where GSM is a predominant standard---proved highly
adept at communicating through mobile text messaging (SMS), a capability
that was roughly analogous to the U.S. delegates' use of Instant
Messaging. It would be useful for future U.S. delegations to become
adept at mobile text messaging prior to future WRCs, and to employ the
technology to maintain constant contact within the Delegation.

# *3.1.3 Media Relations Functions at the Conference* {#media-relations-functions-at-the-conference .Heading-0}

#  {#section-21 .Heading-0}

# In addition to advances in the communications support structure for this WRC, the 2003 Delegation had, for the first time, a defined and designated media relations function. In the past, media relations inquiries and other tasks had been assigned or assumed by a Delegation member, or by professionals within one or more supporting government agencies, such as NTIA. A different approach was applied for the 2003 WRC, with dedicated media relations staff reporting to Ambassador Obuchowski through Delegation Coordinator Kevin "Spanky" Kirsch, who was designated as the press liaison. One member of the media relations staff served on the delegation in Geneva, responding to press inquiries, gathering information and generating press releases and statements on-site. A liaison remained in Washington, coordinating the release of press releases to U.S.-based media. {#in-addition-to-advances-in-the-communications-support-structure-for-this-wrc-the-2003-delegation-had-for-the-first-time-a-defined-and-designated-media-relations-function.-in-the-past-media-relations-inquiries-and-other-tasks-had-been-assigned-or-assumed-by-a-delegation-member-or-by-professionals-within-one-or-more-supporting-government-agencies-such-as-ntia.-a-different-approach-was-applied-for-the-2003-wrc-with-dedicated-media-relations-staff-reporting-to-ambassador-obuchowski-through-delegation-coordinator-kevin-spanky-kirsch-who-was-designated-as-the-press-liaison.-one-member-of-the-media-relations-staff-served-on-the-delegation-in-geneva-responding-to-press-inquiries-gathering-information-and-generating-press-releases-and-statements-on-site.-a-liaison-remained-in-washington-coordinating-the-release-of-press-releases-to-u.s.-based-media. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-22 .Heading-0}

# Ambassador Obuchowski held four press briefings at weekly intervals throughout the Conference. These briefings also benefited from the participation of Senior Advisors who were in attendance at the WRC at the time of each briefing. These included senior officials of the FCC, NTIA, DoD, NASA and other agencies. Reporters were able to attend the briefings at the Head of Delegation's office in Geneva or through a teleconference bridge that allowed call-in participation from the United States. In addition to the press briefings, Ambassador Obuchowski gave several one-on-one interviews with reporters on-site and via telephone links. WRC-2003 attracted extensive coverage from trade press and wire service reporters, resulting in at least 55 news stories and articles being published on the Conference by U.S.-based media alone.  {#ambassador-obuchowski-held-four-press-briefings-at-weekly-intervals-throughout-the-conference.-these-briefings-also-benefited-from-the-participation-of-senior-advisors-who-were-in-attendance-at-the-wrc-at-the-time-of-each-briefing.-these-included-senior-officials-of-the-fcc-ntia-dod-nasa-and-other-agencies.-reporters-were-able-to-attend-the-briefings-at-the-head-of-delegations-office-in-geneva-or-through-a-teleconference-bridge-that-allowed-call-in-participation-from-the-united-states.-in-addition-to-the-press-briefings-ambassador-obuchowski-gave-several-one-on-one-interviews-with-reporters-on-site-and-via-telephone-links.-wrc-2003-attracted-extensive-coverage-from-trade-press-and-wire-service-reporters-resulting-in-at-least-55-news-stories-and-articles-being-published-on-the-conference-by-u.s.-based-media-alone. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-23 .Heading-0}

# 3.2 Overall Conference Structure {#overall-conference-structure .Heading-0}

#  {#section-24 .Heading-0}

Conference officials, committee chairpersons and committee
vice-chairpersons were selected to provide a balanced representation
from the five ITU administration regions---Africa, the Americas, Asia,
Eastern Europe and Western Europe---as well as from the Arab Group. The
chairman of the Conference was Mrs. Veena Rawat (Canada) and there were
six vice-chairmen: Ambassador Obuchowski (United States), Mr. Francois
Rancy (France), Mr. Leonid Reiman (Russia), Mr. Wilson Chepkwony
(Kenya), Mr. Xi Guohua (China) and Mr. Nabil Kisrawi (Syria).

The Conference established eight committees, each of which was assigned
specific agenda items. These committees and their chairpersons were:

COM 1 (Steering Committee) --- Ms. V. Rawat of Canada

COM 2 (Credentials Committee) --- Mr. J. Edane Nkwele, Gabon

COM 3 (Budget Control Committee) --- Mr. B. Gracie, Canada

COM 4 (Regulatory and Associated Issues) --- Mr. E. George, Germany

COM 5 (Allocations and Associated Issues) --- Mr. A. Jamieson, New
Zealand

COM 6 (Appendices 30, 30A and 30B) --- Mr. K. Arasteh, Iran

COM 7 (Future Agendas) --- Mr. A Nalbandian, Armenia

COM 8 (Editorial Committee) --- Mr. L. Bourgeat, France

In addition, the ITU-R provided staff and secretariat support for all
Conference activities as follows:

Secretary of the Conference: Mr. Y. Utsumi, ITU Secretary General

Executive Secretary: Mr. J.P. Lovato

Administrative Secretary: Mr. A. Pitt

Plenary Meeting and Committee 1 (Steering): Mr. R. Smith

COM 2 (Credentials): Mr. P. Capitaine

COM 3 (Budget Control): Mr. J. Maguire

COM 4: (Regulatory) Mr. W. Frank

COM 5: (Allocations) Mr. F. Leite

COM 6 (Appendices 30, 30A and B): Mr. A. Vassiliev

COM 7 (Future Agendas): Mr. D. Schuster

COM 8 (Editorial): Mr. F. Lagrana

The Conference agenda is given in Annex D. The committee structure,
Chairpersons and terms of reference are given in more detail in Annex E.

#  {#section-25 .Heading-0}

# Initial Conference Dynamics {#initial-conference-dynamics .Heading-0}

#  {#section-26 .Heading-0}

#  The tone of the Conference was set quickly by Chairman Veena Rawat, who established a serious and workmanlike atmosphere, focused on the broad agenda of specific telecommunications issues facing the delegates. In accepting the gavel, Ms. Rawat called the delegates' attention to the serious challenge of dealing with 48 agenda items during the allotted time for the Conference. She appealed to them to make progress during the early days of the WRC, particularly on items that had been brought close to agreement during the preparation phase. This guidance from the chair pointed the delegates toward expeditious and efficient efforts to resolve all outstanding issues. This tone prevailed throughout WRC-2003, allowing for a largely non-political Conference that seldom strayed from the discrete issues before it.  {#the-tone-of-the-conference-was-set-quickly-by-chairman-veena-rawat-who-established-a-serious-and-workmanlike-atmosphere-focused-on-the-broad-agenda-of-specific-telecommunications-issues-facing-the-delegates.-in-accepting-the-gavel-ms.-rawat-called-the-delegates-attention-to-the-serious-challenge-of-dealing-with-48-agenda-items-during-the-allotted-time-for-the-conference.-she-appealed-to-them-to-make-progress-during-the-early-days-of-the-wrc-particularly-on-items-that-had-been-brought-close-to-agreement-during-the-preparation-phase.-this-guidance-from-the-chair-pointed-the-delegates-toward-expeditious-and-efficient-efforts-to-resolve-all-outstanding-issues.-this-tone-prevailed-throughout-wrc-2003-allowing-for-a-largely-non-political-conference-that-seldom-strayed-from-the-discrete-issues-before-it. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-27 .Heading-0}

# ITU Secretary-General Yoshio Utsumi urged all of the roughly 2,300 delegates to approach the decision-making process in a spirit of compromise and cooperation. Further, noting the size and scope of this WRC, he asked the ITU and the delegates to consider whether the results of WRCs were productive enough to justify what has become a sizable expenditure of time and resources by all the parties involved. "At this Conference," Mr. Utsumi stated, "it is important to work very efficiently. However, at this Conference, it is equally, if not more important, to discuss measures for improving future Conference processes." The Director of the Radiocommunication Bureau, Valery Timofeev, following the pragmatic tone that he set in the Bureau's conference preparations, can be credited for adhering to this pragmatic approach throughout the conference. Along these lines, several statements throughout the Conference by COM 3 (Budget Control) Chairman Bruce Gracie reflected concerns about the effect that actions taken on the Conference may have upon the financial resources of the ITU-R. {#itu-secretary-general-yoshio-utsumi-urged-all-of-the-roughly-2300-delegates-to-approach-the-decision-making-process-in-a-spirit-of-compromise-and-cooperation.-further-noting-the-size-and-scope-of-this-wrc-he-asked-the-itu-and-the-delegates-to-consider-whether-the-results-of-wrcs-were-productive-enough-to-justify-what-has-become-a-sizable-expenditure-of-time-and-resources-by-all-the-parties-involved.-at-this-conference-mr.-utsumi-stated-it-is-important-to-work-very-efficiently.-however-at-this-conference-it-is-equally-if-not-more-important-to-discuss-measures-for-improving-future-conference-processes.-the-director-of-the-radiocommunication-bureau-valery-timofeev-following-the-pragmatic-tone-that-he-set-in-the-bureaus-conference-preparations-can-be-credited-for-adhering-to-this-pragmatic-approach-throughout-the-conference.-along-these-lines-several-statements-throughout-the-conference-by-com-3-budget-control-chairman-bruce-gracie-reflected-concerns-about-the-effect-that-actions-taken-on-the-conference-may-have-upon-the-financial-resources-of-the-itu-r. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-28 .Heading-0}

# The U.S. Delegation embraced the tone and guidance provided by Chairman Rawat. During the initial plenary session, there was an ill-timed protest, delivered on the floor by the Cuban delegation that had no bearing on the issues under consideration at the Conference. Choosing not to allow Cuba to bog the Conference down in extraneous political posturing, the U.S. Delegation ignored the intervention, signaling its intention to proceed to the pressing business before the delegates. This signal appeared to be well received by the Chairman and the Conference as a whole and helped preserve the business-like tone of the opening days of the WRC. {#the-u.s.-delegation-embraced-the-tone-and-guidance-provided-by-chairman-rawat.-during-the-initial-plenary-session-there-was-an-ill-timed-protest-delivered-on-the-floor-by-the-cuban-delegation-that-had-no-bearing-on-the-issues-under-consideration-at-the-conference.-choosing-not-to-allow-cuba-to-bog-the-conference-down-in-extraneous-political-posturing-the-u.s.-delegation-ignored-the-intervention-signaling-its-intention-to-proceed-to-the-pressing-business-before-the-delegates.-this-signal-appeared-to-be-well-received-by-the-chairman-and-the-conference-as-a-whole-and-helped-preserve-the-business-like-tone-of-the-opening-days-of-the-wrc. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-29 .Heading-0}

# The opening days of the Conference saw some negotiations involving the organization of working groups and the committee assignments of agenda items. From the U.S. perspective, the Delegation had entered the Conference hoping that a U.S. national would be named to chair one of the working groups reporting to COM 5 (allocations). There was strong backing, however, for another candidate for that post; ultimately, the issue was resolved by creating an additional working group, thus providing roles for both candidates. {#the-opening-days-of-the-conference-saw-some-negotiations-involving-the-organization-of-working-groups-and-the-committee-assignments-of-agenda-items.-from-the-u.s.-perspective-the-delegation-had-entered-the-conference-hoping-that-a-u.s.-national-would-be-named-to-chair-one-of-the-working-groups-reporting-to-com-5-allocations.-there-was-strong-backing-however-for-another-candidate-for-that-post-ultimately-the-issue-was-resolved-by-creating-an-additional-working-group-thus-providing-roles-for-both-candidates. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-30 .Heading-0}

# In addition, there was some disagreement over whether Agenda Item 1.11 (Aeronautical MSS in the 14-14.5 GHz band) should be assigned to COM 5 or to COM 4 (regulatory). The U.S. strongly favored assignment of agenda item 1.11 to COM 5, because the item concerned a proposed allocation. Other delegations, led by Arab countries with the apparent backing of some European administrations, saw this agenda item as one that raised regulatory issues and favored assignment to COM 4. To resolve this question, it was agreed that both committees would consider the agenda item in turn. This proved to be an unwieldy approach, contributing to the delay in resolving the agenda item until the last days of the WRC. The U.S. considered this development a sign that some of the Arab or European administrations might try to link approval of the AMSS allocation in COM 4 to the resolution of other agenda items more closely affecting their interests.  {#in-addition-there-was-some-disagreement-over-whether-agenda-item-1.11-aeronautical-mss-in-the-14-14.5-ghz-band-should-be-assigned-to-com-5-or-to-com-4-regulatory.-the-u.s.-strongly-favored-assignment-of-agenda-item-1.11-to-com-5-because-the-item-concerned-a-proposed-allocation.-other-delegations-led-by-arab-countries-with-the-apparent-backing-of-some-european-administrations-saw-this-agenda-item-as-one-that-raised-regulatory-issues-and-favored-assignment-to-com-4.-to-resolve-this-question-it-was-agreed-that-both-committees-would-consider-the-agenda-item-in-turn.-this-proved-to-be-an-unwieldy-approach-contributing-to-the-delay-in-resolving-the-agenda-item-until-the-last-days-of-the-wrc.-the-u.s.-considered-this-development-a-sign-that-some-of-the-arab-or-european-administrations-might-try-to-link-approval-of-the-amss-allocation-in-com-4-to-the-resolution-of-other-agenda-items-more-closely-affecting-their-interests. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-31 .Heading-0}

# After these initial episodes, however, the work of the Conference launched in a business-like manner, beginning with working group and drafting group consideration of proposals. {#after-these-initial-episodes-however-the-work-of-the-conference-launched-in-a-business-like-manner-beginning-with-working-group-and-drafting-group-consideration-of-proposals. .Heading-0}

**4.0 OUTCOME OF THE CONFERENCE**

This section of the report explains in more detail how the results of
the Conference conformed to U.S. objectives. To illustrate the dynamics
at play during the Conference, this section is subdivided by committee,
with the agenda items assigned to each committee enumerated and
described accordingly.

# 4.1 COM 1 -- Steering Committee {#com-1-steering-committee .Heading-0}

The Conference chairman, Mrs. Veena Rawat, chaired the Steering
Committee. It also included conference vice-chairmen and the chairmen
and vice-chairmen of each of the other committees. Amb. Janice
Obuchowski was the U.S. spokesperson in COM 1, and Mr. Frank Williams
served as alternate spokesperson.

The principal role of the Steering Committee is to coordinate all
matters connected with the smooth execution of work and to plan the
order and number of Conference meetings, taking into account the
Conference's resources. In practical terms, COM 1 serves as a mechanism
to support the Conference chairman in successfully managing and
concluding the work of each WRC. The U.S. objective in this committee
was to achieve a successful WRC outcome within the predetermined
schedule and budgeted resources. These objectives were met through the
successful conclusion of the Conference.

Steering Committee meetings were held at least twice a week. In general,
the discussions focused on the nuts and bolts of Conference scheduling
and the support being offered by ITU staff. Frequently, the schedule of
committee meetings or working group meetings as proposed by the ITU
Secretariat was adjusted and coordinated in response to the demands of
the work.

# 4.2 COM 2 -- Credentials Committee  {#com-2-credentials-committee .Heading-0}

The chairman of the Credentials Committee was Mr. J. Edane N\'Kwele of
Gabon and the vice-chairman was Mr. Andrey Krutskikh of Russia. The
secretary of COM 2 was Philippe Capitaine of the ITU Secretariat. The
U.S. spokesperson for COM 2 was Anne Jillson.

*4.2.1 U.S. Objectives*

The U.S. objectives for this committee were to ensure the verification
of the credentials of each of the delegations present at the Conference.
The U.S. also wanted to ensure that correct procedures were followed for
transfers of power for one country's delegation to represent another.
Finally, another goal was to make sure that the results of COM 2\'s
activities were submitted to the Plenary in a timely fashion.

*4.2.2 Activities and Accomplishments*

At its first meeting, the committee set up a working group to examine
credentials in order to ensure that they met the standards outlined in
Article 31 of the ITU Convention. The working group met three times
under the leadership of the committee vice-chairman. The following
countries participated in the working group: France, Japan, Kenya,
Moldova, Russia, Spain, Ukraine and the United States. In the reviews of
credentials undertaken by the working group, a number of problems were
found with some credentials, and clarifications were requested from
these delegations and from their capitals. No political issues arose
during the discussions. The United States received a transfer of powers
from the Federated States of Micronesia; this was the only transfer of
powers considered by the committee.

COM 2 reported to the Plenary that a final total of 134 countries were
entitled to vote and to sign the Final Acts. Six countries present
without the right to vote deposited satisfactory credentials and,
therefore, had the right to sign the Final Acts. Another six countries
either did not deposit credentials or deposited credentials that were
not in order. These countries could not vote and could not sign the
Final Acts.

# 4.3 COM 3 - Budget Control {#com-3---budget-control .Heading-0}

The chairperson of the Budget Control Committee was Mr. B. Gracie of
Canada and the vice-chairperson was Mr. S. Glotov of the Ukraine. The
ITU secretary for the committee was Mr. J. Maguire. The U.S.
spokesperson in COM 3 was Mr. William Jahn, and the alternate
spokesperson was Ms. Anne Jillson.

## *4.3.1 U.S. Objectives*

The U.S. objectives for COM 3 were to ensure that the expenditures of
the Conference were covered by the approved budgeted amounts, and that
sufficient ITU-R funds were available to complete the activities
approved by the Conference.

## *4.3.2 Activities and Accomplishments*

The committee provided the WRC delegates with a summary of expenditures
that was up-to-date through the middle of the final week of the
Conference. This report showed that the expenditures were projected to
be 342,000 Swiss Francs---less than the amount set by the ITU Council
for WRC-2003.

In a Plenary meeting and in the Budget Committee, Mr. Gracie made it
clear that the ITU budget for 2004-2007 made no provision for WRC-03
post-conference work (See document 216). In addition, he stated in both
meetings that there were insufficient funds in the budget to fund
current ITU-R activities. He drew attention to No. 489 of the ITU
Convention, which states that no decision of a conference shall be put
into effect if it will result in a direct or indirect increase in
expenses beyond the credits that the Council is empowered to authorize.

COM 3 recognized that agenda items that can be handled through the
normal study group process are, in fact, provided for in the budget. The
chairman of the committee asked the chairmen of the other committees to
identify any new work that they were approving that would incur
resources above and beyond the normal study group process. Moreover, in
a joint meeting with COM 7, Mr. Gracie asked that committee to identify
any potential additional costs related to each of the proposed future
conference agenda items. The conference committees were not asked to
cost out the additional work for those items that were being approved.
That task was left to COM 3.

In the end, lack of time and pressure from several Arab countries, led
by Syria, resulted in no formal effort being made by the Conference to
determine the costs of decisions made at the WRC or entailed in future
agenda items. Thus, the Conference did not assemble assemble a report to
forward to Council. It also did not decide if the ITU could afford to
fund the decisions being made, in light of requirements by No. 92 of
Article 13 of the Constitution and paragraph 4.3.5 of Part II of
Resolution 71 of Marrakech. Syria and other administrations, pursuing
their own agendas, opined that these matters should be left to the
Council to resolve during a special session to establish the ITU Budget
for 2004-05.

In some ways, despite the efforts of the chairman of the Budget
Committee, this Conference did not frontally address issues of fiscal
responsibility. One reason for this, in addition to a lack of time to
resolve this issue, was the full knowledge that there are no funds
currently available to implement decisions of the Conference unless the
next WRC is pushed to 2008. At the same time, it must be positively
acknowledged that the business-like tone of the proceedings reflected a
broad-based commitment to fiscal responsibility, at least among those
employed in the ITU-R sector.

**4.4 COM 4 -- Regulatory and Associated Issues**

Committee 4's chairperson was Mr. E. George (Germany). Vice-chairpersons
were Mr. B. Nurmatov (Kyrgyzstan), Mr. B. Chaudhuri (India), and Mr.
J.-B. Yao (Cote d\'Ivoire). The U.S. spokesperson was Mr. Douglas Spalt.
The Committee dealt with issues as follows:

1.  *Review of footnotes (Agenda Item 1.1)*

This agenda item concerned requests from administrations to delete their
country footnotes or to have their country names deleted from footnotes,
if no longer required, in accordance with Resolution 26 (Rev.WRC-97).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objective was to encourage the
elimination of national footnotes where possible, while maintaining
national flexibility for such footnotes as an option when needed to
obtain agreements. The United States supported adding or correcting
country footnotes to reflect national use. However, the United States
opposed using this agenda item as a means to obtain a general allocation
change by adding new footnotes or introducing issues not addressed by a
specific agenda item.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: All country name deletions
were accepted without question. Consideration of country name additions
was authorized by the Plenary, with the understanding that such
additions would be disallowed if they provoked any reasonable
opposition. Other footnote changes proposed under this agenda item were
rejected. The only significant issue for the United States under this
agenda item was a U.S. proposal to add Guam to an existing country
footnote, in order to bring earth station operations there into full
compliance with the Table of Frequency Allocations. This addition was
accepted by the Conference. Therefore, all U.S. objectives for this
agenda item were achieved.

2.  *Permitting digital modulation in the high-frequency (HF)
    broadcasting bands (Agenda Item 1.2)*

The purpose of this agenda item was to develop new regulations and
procedures for using spectrum allocated to HF (short-wave) broadcasting
bands (the HFBC bands) for digital radio services.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objective was to gain approval
for language from the Report of the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM)
and for the CITEL proposal for this item, which essentially was
developed by the United States. This objective would provide equal
regulatory access and flexibility to use digital and all other emission
techniques for HFBC-allocated bands, as specified in the Radio
Regulations (RR).

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: All U.S. objectives were
met. RR 5.134 allocates additional HFBC bands 5900-5950 kHz,
7300-7350 kHz, 9400-9500 kHz, 11600-11650 kHz, 12050-12100 kHz,
13570-13600 kHz, 13800-13870 kHz, 15600-15800 kHz, 17480-17550 kHz and
18900-19020 kHz. The Conference modified 5.134 to confirm the date of
availability as April 1, 2007, and the bands were opened up for double
side-band and digital emissions without fixing a time frame for the
transition. This was a welcome development, because these bands
originally were intended only for single side-band emissions, a
technology which found no users in the broadcasting world and is now
defunct.

To pave the way for a seamless introduction of short-wave digital radio
broadcasting services in the allocated spectrum using the ITU-approved
digital system, the Conference adopted several new regulatory provisions
and also modified some of the existing ones. Resolution \[COM 4/1\]) was
adopted, stipulating minimum protection ratios between digital and
analog emissions. These protection values are provisional and need to be
confirmed later. Meanwhile, Resolution 517 was amended to govern the
introduction of digital services, describing the use of these protection
ratios and other technical parameters. Specific amendments to existing
regulations---Article 23, Appendix 11 and Resolution 535, among
others---were made to complete the required regulatory procedures. The
technical and regulatory mechanisms are now in place for introduction of
digital short-wave transmissions in the HFBC bands.

3.  *Article 25 modifications (Agenda Item 1.7.1)*

This item considered modifications of Article 25 concerning the amateur
services.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: A general objective was to re-cast
existing provisions in a more positive tone. For example, language in RR
No. 25.1 was altered as follows: "Radiocommunications between amateur
stations of different countries shall be permitted unless the
administration of one of the countries concerned has notified that it
objects to such communications."

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Modification of RR No.
25.3 was the subject of debate, but an agreement was reached on the
following text: "Amateur stations may be used for transmitting
international communications on behalf of third parties only in case of
emergencies or disaster relief. An administration may determine the
applicability of this provision to amateur stations under its
jurisdiction." At a minimum, this provision allows international
third-party messages in emergencies. If an administration chooses, it
can decide to permit international third-party communications with all
other countries or only with certain countries. This should eliminate or
greatly reduce the need for third-party agreements between countries.

RR No. 25.5 was modified to eliminate the treaty requirement for sending
or receiving Morse code. Administrations now will determine whether or
not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station should have
to prove a capability to send and receive texts in Morse code.

Other changes included the following:

\-- RR No. 25.6 was modified to make reference to the most recent
version of Recommendation ITU-R M.1544 as guidance for standards of
competence for amateur operators.

\--RR No. 25.9A was added to encourage administrations to take steps
requiring amateur stations to prepare for communication in support of
disaster relief.

\-- RR No. 25.9B was added to permit administrations to determine
whether or not to allow a person licensed by another administration to
operate temporarily in its territory. This should have the effect of
reducing administrative burdens by eliminating or greatly reducing the
need for roaming agreements.

4.  *Formation of call signs (Agenda Item 1.7.2)*

The Conference considered how to eliminate ambiguities in the RR
concerning call sign formation.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objectives were to eliminate
ambiguity and provide flexibility in call sign assignments.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: RR No. 19.68A was added to
give administrations more flexibility in authorizing amateur-station
call signs for temporary use.

5.  *Article 1 changes (Agenda Item 1.7.3)*

This item called on delegates to consider changes in the definitions of
the amateur service and amateur-satellite service that may be required
as a consequence of changes in Article 25.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objective was not to have any
changes to Article 1 of the RR.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: There were no proposals
from administrations to modify Article 1, and none arose as a
consequence of changes to Article 25.

6.  *Boundary of the Spurious Domain of an Emission (Agenda Item
    1.8.1).*

This agenda item called for consideration of the results of studies
regarding the boundary between spurious and out‑of-band emissions, with
a view to including the boundary in Appendix 3.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objectives were to add
definitions for the out-of-band and spurious domains of an emission to
Article 1 of the RR, and to modify Article 3 and Appendix 3 consistent
with the CITEL proposal on this agenda item.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The resulting
modifications to Articles 1 and 3 and Appendix 3 were very similar to
the CITEL proposal, except that the Appendix 3 revisions included
specific guidance on reference bandwidths. The outcome also included a
new recommendation to study the spurious domain boundary for
magnetron-based radar systems.

The United States had led efforts to develop the domain concepts and the
boundary guidance in ITU-R Task Group 1/5 and Working Party 1A. The
similarity between the CITEL proposal and proposals from other
administrations and regional groups reflected the broad agreement
reached well in advance of the Conference.

The most divisive issue was how to specify the spurious domain boundary
for radar systems. The Conference of European Postal and
Telecommunications (CEPT) administrations proposed to incorporate, by
reference, a recommendation on the spurious domain boundary for radar
systems, so that tighter restrictions on radar emissions could quickly
be included in the RR as they were developed. They also wanted Appendix
3 to include specific reference-bandwidth guidance, as in the CPM
Report, while the CITEL proposal had adopted a general reference to
appropriate recommendations.

The results of the discussion---which were completely successful in the
view of the U.S. Delegation---came from a combination of accommodation
and compromise. The U.S. agreed to return to the CPM text on reference
bandwidths (U.S. radar interests did not oppose this), while the
Conference generated radar boundary guidance based on the U.S./CITEL
proposal. While Japan and the Asia-Pacific Telecommunity (APT) had
originally wanted a resolution and a WRC--07 agenda item to address
magnetron radars, the U.S. expressed its reluctance to agree to a future
agenda item. Japan and the APT then agreed, as a compromise, to a
recommendation with no agenda item. This conformed to the U.S.
Delegation's preference for special accommodations for low-cost
magnetron radars operating in situations where interference is unlikely.

7.  *Protection of passive services from unwanted emissions,
    particularly with regard to space service transmissions (Agenda Item
    1.8.2)*

The item considered the results of studies and proposals for regulatory
measures regarding the protection of passive services from unwanted
emissions, in particular from space service transmissions, in response
to recommends 5 and 6 of Recommendation 66 (Rev.WRC‑2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objectives were to have no
change to the RR or, failing that, to minimize changes that would put an
undue burden on the active services. The possible outcomes of greatest
concern to the U.S. Delegation were either hard limits on unwanted
emissions or, for space services, *de facto* hard limits in the form of
a consultation regime that could delay satellite-network notification
indefinitely.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: While avoiding hard limits
and "hard" consultation, the outcome of the Conference included a
limited form of consultation and agenda items for WRC--07 with a more
narrow focus than at this Conference. For Earth Exploration-Satellite
Service (EESS) (passive) protection, Resolution 738 \[COM4/14\] calls
for continued studies on a limited list of frequency band pairs. For
Radio Astronomy Service (RAS) protection, the Conference developed
Resolution 739 \[COM4/15\], calling for consultation between
administrations, and Resolution 740 \[COM4/17\], which called for
further study of the threshold levels for this consultation in
particular frequency bands.

The U.S. strategy was to maintain the no-change (NOC) stance as long as
possible, while building a large coalition that opposed hard limits on
unwanted emissions. The Regional Communications Community (RCC),
consisting mostly of former states of the Soviet Union, administrations
clarified in early bilateral meetings that their position was similar to
the U.S. position. In addition, the African administrations submitted a
new proposal that also resembled the U.S. position, calling for no
change to the Radio Regulations. Both groups, however, wanted the
Conference to reach a compromise. That left the U.S. with a very small
number of individual administrations---including Israel, Papua New
Guinea and South Africa---firmly supporting our NOC proposal.

While we held to our NOC position through the first three weeks of the
Conference, Canada and the Arab group were crafting a compromise with
CEPT and the APT that would avoid hard limits and "hard" consultation
processes. Throughout this compromise process, the U.S. held to its NOC
position and did not accept the proposed compromise.

Finally, in the last days of the Conference, the United States accepted
what it understood to be an agreement with CEPT on some additional
concessions, which the U.S. required in exchange for supporting focused
studies on radio astronomy protection. These included removal of the GPS
bands from the consultation resolutions and the insertion of wording to
clarify that the future studies in the second resolution were limited to
the listed bands. This compromise yielded a more circumscribed
consultation process and narrowly focused future studies.

France balked, however, at the compromise reached with CEPT. But, after
much debate, it agreed to add only a single phrase---after the United
States made clear that it would attempt to block the resolutions if the
changes to the resolution obtained through the compromise were not
accepted.

FCC staff in Geneva and Washington expressed concern about the
resolution dealing with EESS future studies---particularly regarding the
Fixed Service (FS) in bands around 30 GHz. As a result of lengthy
negotiations between the FCC and the NTIA, and with the approval of the
Ambassador, the Delegation submitted a statement to the Plenary
expressing concerns about the probable outcome of the requested studies.
This statement, referring to *resolves* 1.20, stated the following:

*The United States continues to believe that the only regulatory
measures that could possibly result from the studies under WRC‑07 agenda
item 1.20 and its associated Resolution \[COM4/14\] are hard limits for
terrestrial radio services. The imposition of such regulatory limits on
communications equipment, including aircraft communications, defence
radars, and cellular handsets, among others, would represent a
significant burden on equipment manufacturers and national regulators.
Because of this, we believe that this agenda item will be extremely
difficult to resolve at WRC‑07.*

###  {#section-32 .Heading_b}

8.  *Review of Appendix 13, Resolution 331 and related changes to
    Chapter VII of the RR (Agenda Item 1.9)*

The purpose of this item was to consider whether to delete Appendix 13
and Resolution 331 (Rev.WRC-97) and, if appropriate, to consider related
changes to Chapter VII and other provisions of the RR, if necessary,
taking into account the continued transition to, and introduction of,
the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objectives were to defer any
changes to (or deletion of) Appendix 13 until a future WRC. The U.S.
also wanted to ensure that any changes to Resolution 331 and Chapter VII
would only correct the text to reflect the present-day status of
maritime distress and safety communications. Additionally, the U.S.
wanted to ensure no change to Resolution 331 that would set specific
dates or milestones for all vessels to be fitted with digital selective
calling (DSC) radios and other radio equipment required for GMDSS.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: (1) On Appendix 13:
Appendix 13 spells out the safety and distress communications provisions
for vessels not fitted-out for GMDSS. The Conference agreed to the U.S.
no-change position for Appendix 13. The United States believed that it
would be premature to delete the appendix because a large number of
non-SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea) vessels have not yet been fitted for
GMDSS capability. Therefore, modifications to the appendix would be
time-consuming and provide no real benefit at this juncture.

\(2\) On Resolution 331: Resolution 331 addresses the transition to
GMDSS of all vessels not covered by the International Maritime
Organization's (IMO's) SOLAS Convention. The U.S. objective was to limit
changes to editorial modifications. It primarily was concerned about a
CEPT proposal to set 2005 as the target to require all vessels to be
fitted with DSC radios. The Delegation succeeded in replacing a specific
date with text saying that DSC radios should be installed "as soon as
possible, taking into account the relevant decisions of IMO."

\(3\) On Chapter VII: Chapter VII includes the provision for distress
and safety communications for ships that are not fitted with GMDSS
capability. Only minor changes were proposed for Chapter VII to delete
some outdated requirements, such as the requirement for Morse
telegraphy.

9.  *Possible exhaustion of the Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI)
    numbering resource (Agenda Item 1.10.1)*

This item considered the results of studies, and any necessary actions,
relating to exhaustion of the MMSI numbers (Resolution 344 (WRC-97)).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. had two primary objectives under
this agenda item:

(1) To modify Article 19 of the RR and Resolution 344, providing
    flexibility to assign MMSIs and eliminating the potential exhaustion
    of the MMSI numbering resource; and

(2) To modify Article 19 of the RR to permit assignment of MMSIs to
    aircraft involved in search and rescue (SAR) operations.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: (1) On MMSI Exhaustion:
Article 19 of the RR and Resolution 344 were modified to provide the
necessary flexibility in assigning MMSIs and to eliminate the potential
for exhausting this numbering resource. These changes, which were
developed and extensively vetted during the pre-Conference ITU-R and CPM
processes, were quickly agreed to, without discussion and in line with
U.S. proposals. The United States was one of the few administrations
that took an active role in developing these modifications during
meetings of the ITU-R and CPM. The text that had been developed during
the final CPM was therefore accepted with virtually no change.

\(2\) On MMSIs for Aircraft: The United States (supported by CITEL)
proposed allowing MMSIs to be assigned to aircraft involved in SAR
operations. This encountered considerable opposition, primarily from
CEPT administrations. Their main concern was that changing the RR during
the Conference would be premature, because ITU-R studies would be
required to rule out incompatibility issues with existing systems. There
was an additional concern that allowing DSC equipment on aircraft might
degrade the effectiveness of GMDSS.

To resolve this issue, the United States (a U.S. Delegation member
chaired the drafting group) proposed to develop a resolution requiring
MMSIs to be assigned to equipment other than shipboard mobile equipment.
The accepted resolution recognized the need for MMSIs assigned to SAR
aircraft and for other uses not included within the RR, requested
administrations to notify the BR when assigning these numbers, and
included text requesting a study of this issue by the ITU-R, which would
be considered at WRC-07. This resolution was accepted by the WRC.

1.  *Shore-to-ship distress communications priority (Agenda Item
    1.10.2)*

This agenda item was designed to consider the results of studies, and
take any necessary actions, relating to shore-to-ship distress
communication priorities (Resolution 348 (WRC-97).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: A shore-based search and rescue (SAR)
authority currently has no means to interrupt or preempt satellite
communications to a vessel during a distress or safety situation. This
is an existing problem within the Inmarsat satellite system, which is
the only satellite communications provider currently part of the GMDSS
system. The U.S. goal was to support any possible study, procedure, or
proposal that would allow SAR authorities to interrupt or preempt
satellite communications to a vessel in a distress or safety emergency.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Several administrations
proposed editorial modifications to Resolution 348. The United States
noted that only Inmarsat could make any changes or develop operational
procedures to resolve this problem. Additionally, since Inmarsat is a
private organization, modification of ITU Resolution 348 would have
little effect on it. The United States suggested, and COM 4 agreed, that
this resolution should be suppressed. COM 4 also prepared text for the
minutes of the Plenary explaining that if a standardized operational
procedure is needed, it should be developed in ITU-R Study Group 8.

2.  *Harmful Interference in the MMS and Aeronautical Mobile (R) Service
    (AM(R)S) and Review of MF/HF Channels for Digital Use (Agenda Item
    1.14)*

The Conference considered measures to address harmful interference in
the bands allocated to the Maritime Mobile and Aeronautical Mobile (R)
Services, taking into account Resolutions 207 (Rev.WRC-2000) and 350
(WRC-2000). WRC-2003 also reviewed the frequency and channel
arrangements in the maritime medium-frequency (MF) and high-frequency
(HF) bands concerning the use of new digital technology, also taking
into account Resolution 347 (WRC-97).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: This agenda item had three primary issues
for consideration:

Issue A -- This involved interference to HF distress and safety
frequencies used by the Aeronautical and Maritime Mobile Services. The
U.S. objective was to support methods that would lead to the elimination
of harmful interference to these services. More specifically, the U.S.
supported the non-regulatory techniques developed during the CPM, while
noting that implementation might be very hard to accomplish.

Issue B -- This issue involved routine calling on 12290 kHz and
16420 kHz, and the use of DSC distress and safety frequencies for
ship-to-ship and shore-to-ship routine calling. The objective for Issue
B was to modify the RR to allow safety-related voice calling to and from
rescue coordination centers on the 12 and 16 MHz distress frequencies.
Additionally, the United States proposed allowing ship and coast
stations to make routine calls to other ship stations using HF DSC on
the distress and safety frequencies when there were no other
alternatives.

Issue C -- This had to do with introducing new digital technology, such
as MF/HF email. The U.S. objective was to modify Appendix 17 to the RR,
in order to allow the current HF Morse telegraphy and narrow-band,
direct-printing channels to be used for the development and testing of
new digital maritime services, such as HF email. Additionally, the
United States wanted to ensure that the basic transmission protocols
developed for use on these frequencies would be non-proprietary.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}:

Issue A - The United States supported the modifications to
Resolution 207, including addition of a new annex**.** These changes
effectively ask administrations to exercise regulatory control as the
prime method to control harmful interference. They also put forward
additional, non-regulatory, operational and technical interference
mitigation techniques outlined in the annex.

Issue B - The use of the 12 and 16 MHz distress and safety frequencies
for routine calling had been an extremely contentious issue during
WRC-2000. Over the strong arguments and objections of the United States,
WRC-2000 had decided to prohibit calling on these two frequencies,
effective December 31, 2003. Over the last three years, considerable
effort and coordination was put into this issue at various ITU-R
meetings, the CPM and non-ITU forums. All of this resulted in a
compromise text developed by the United States that would allow limited
calling to and from rescue coordination centers, subject to safeguards
of an accompanying resolution. This compromise, modification of the RR
and addition of a new resolution, was accepted with only minor editorial
changes.

Meanwhile, the United States had proposed permitting ship and coast
stations to make routine calls to other ships using HF digital selective
calling when other alternatives were not available. This proposal was
developed to solve a communications deficiency noted by the IMO. During
discussions, Denmark and Australia provided new information and data
indicating that some coast stations had extremely high traffic levels,
which on occasion exceeded the safe levels allowed in the existing ITU-R
recommendation. This overloading was due to the large number of radio
checks on these distress and safety frequencies. Once this data was
presented, there was general agreement that allowing general calling at
this time could be harmful to distress and safety communications and
that further study within ITU-R would be necessary.

Issue C - This issue had been very well developed and vetted during the
ITU-R and CPM processes, in which the United States took a very active
role. The proposals related to the introduction of new digital
technology included modifications to Appendix 17. These would allow
specific frequencies to be used to test new digital technology. The
proposals also included a new recommendation to address this new
technology development. These proposals were accepted with little
discussion.

3.  *Misapplication of the Article 22 equivalent power flux-density
    (epfd) limits (Agenda Item 1.19)*

The agenda item invited delegates to consider regulatory changes to
avoid misapplying the non-geostationary-satellite orbit (NGSO)
single-entry limits in Article 22, based on the results of ITU-R studies
carried out in accordance with Resolution 135.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States and CITEL supported CPM
text that concluded that no further studies were required on this issue,
and that the current RR are adequate.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: WRC-2000 had adopted power
limits to be met by systems with NGSO satellites, in order to protect
networks with satellites operating in the geostationary-satellite orbit
(GSO) in certain frequency bands. An NGSO system generally consists of
many satellites, and the sum of the power from all the satellites in a
particular system must meet these limits. The term "misapplication"
refers to artificially splitting or combining the satellites in an NGSO
system (e.g., splitting an NGSO system consisting of 100 satellites into
two constellations of 50 satellites each). The only reason to misapply
the power limits in this manner would be to artificially "lower" the
power levels of a system that would not otherwise meet the limits.

There was an enormous amount of work put into this issue by the United
States over the past six years, culminating in an unopposed agreement at
this Conference to make no changes to the RR regarding this agenda item.
This agreement met no opposition. There was no need to introduce or
discuss the basis for the individual or regional proposals, because all
contributions supported the conclusion that that the current RR were
adequate and no further studies were required.

4.  *Realignment around 7 MHz for Amateur and Broadcasting services
    (Agenda Item 1.23)*

The delegates considered realignment of the allocations to the Amateur,
Amateur-Satellite and Broadcasting services around 7 MHz on a worldwide
basis, taking into account Recommendation 718 (WRC-92).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States sought to align the 7
MHz spectrum with respect to the undesirable sharing that exists between
the Amateur and Broadcasting Services while minimizing any negative
impact to the diverse U.S. requirements for the Fixed and Mobile
Services, the Broadcasting Service, and the Amateur Service.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The United States
developed a compromise proposal that balanced the requirements of the
Amateur, Broadcasting, Fixed and Mobile services that operate both
nationally and internationally. This carefully crafted proposal also was
a blend of the CITEL and CEPT proposals. The U.S. proposed to allocate
an additional 200 kHz to the Amateur Service in the 7100-7300 kHz band
in ITU Regions 1 and 3. The upper 100 kHz of that block was to be shared
between Amateur, Fixed and Mobile Services (except Aeronautical Mobile
(R) Service). As a consequence of the realignment of the Amateur
Service, the United States proposed a reallocation of 200 kHz for the
Broadcasting Service in Regions 1 and 3.

The United States did not sign on to the CITEL proposal. However, the
U.S. and CITEL proposals were aligned---except that the U.S. proposal
added 100 kHz shared between Amateur, Fixed and Mobile Services at
7200-7300 kHz. The U.S. proposal also was aligned with the CEPT
proposal, except for two differences. First, CEPT earmarked 100 kHz to
be shared between Amateur, Fixed and Mobile Services in Region 2.
Second, CEPT retained the Fixed and Mobile Service allocations at
7350-7550 kHz instead of the Broadcasting Service allocation in Region
2. The opposing views that were most significant came from a group
comprised of Korea, Japan, and Russia, which proposed only 100 kHz for
the Amateur Service. Another group comprised of Australia, Iran, and the
Arab States proposed no change (NOC).

This agenda item could not be solved in the sub-working group or at the
working-group level despite intensive discussion, negotiation, and
compromise. Committee 4 adjourned without addressing this issue. Fearing
a lack of resolution, Chairman Rawat formed a small, informal group to
craft a 100 kHz compromise so that a single proposal could be considered
in Plenary. An ad hoc group of the plenary was established to consider
this compromise and address a number of details, such as timing of
implementation and the development of footnotes to give certain
countries alternative allocation options. The results of the ad hoc
group were presented as a compromise to the Plenary.

The final compromise consisted of an allocation table, which realigns an
additional 100 kHz for the Amateur Service across all 3 Regions. This
realignment provides the Amateur Service with a total of 200 kHz
worldwide, eliminating the undesirable sharing with the Broadcasting
Service in the 7100-7200 kHz band. A footnote was approved to provide
many countries in Region 3 an additional primary allocation for Fixed
and Mobile Services at 7100-7200 kHz. The compromise successfully
includes the realignment implementation date of 2009, which was
recommended by the U.S. in its proposal for this agenda item.

The final result was consistent with the U.S. proposal. In terms of U.S.
interests, the achievements were:

-   The U.S. proposal provided a bridge between CEPT and CITEL proposals
    which formed the basis for the final compromise solution to this
    agenda item;

-   The Amateur Service gained a worldwide allocation of 100 kHz at
    7100-7200 kHz, thereby eliminating the current undesirable sharing
    with the broadcasting service;

-   U.S. amateurs will receive less interference from the Region 1
    broadcasts starting in 2009, which was one of the reasons for this
    agenda item;

-   Region 2 amateurs retained their existing 300 kHz frequency
    allocation;

-   Region 2 broadcasters will have an additional allocation of 50 kHz
    at 7350-7400 kHz;

-   Provision was made for Fixed and Mobile Services displaced by the
    Broadcasting Service in the 7350-7400 kHz band to remain on a
    non-interference basis;

-   There will be further consideration of allocations at WRC-07 under a
    proposed agenda item covering the 4-10 MHz range.

    1.  *Earth Stations on Vessels (Agenda Item 1.26)*

AI 1.26 considered the provisions under which earth stations on vessels
could operate in Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) networks, taking into
account the ITU-R studies in response to Resolution 82 (WRC-2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States (through a CITEL
proposal) sought to provide an international regulatory framework for
satellite earth stations on board moving vessels (ESVs). This regulatory
framework could be the basis for national regulations for licensing
ESVs. It could also be the foundation for reaching agreements with
licensing administrations when the routes of ships carrying ESVs might
cause interference to stations in the Fixed Service of another
administration.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: WRC-03 adopted several
footnotes to the Table of Frequency Allocations, one of which points to
a resolution and recommendation for the implementation of the service.
The primary footnote to the Table of Allocations that was adopted is No.
5. \[AA16\]. This footnote says the use of ESVs in these bands \"shall
be in accordance with Resolution \[COM4/20\] (WRC-03)\".

Three additional footnotes were adopted that were not in the CITEL
proposal:

1\. Footnote No. 5. \[AA17\] was placed next to the MSS allocation in
the band 14-14.5 GHz. It stipulates that any ship earth station (SES)
with an equivalent isotropically radiated power (eirp) greater than 21
dBW must also operate under the provisions of Resolution \[COM4/20\]
(WRC-03). An exception was made for SES operation in this band, for
which the complete RR Appendix 4 information has been received by the BR
prior to July 5, 2003. The purpose of this footnote is to restrict the
use of the MSS allocation to very low-power emissions, unless the
limitations of the resolution are met.

2\. Footnote No. 5. \[AA18\] was placed next to the FSS allocation in
the band 14-14.5 GHz. This footnote allows ESVs to operate within the
minimum distance given in Resolution \[COM4/20\] (WRC‑03) in the
frequency band 14-14.5 GHz without the need for prior agreement of
Cyprus, Greece and Malta. These countries do not have terrestrial
services in the 14-14.5 GHz band. Consequently, they did not want to
bear the administrative burden of concluding agreements when they had no
terrestrial services to protect.

3\. The Arab Group introduced a further footnote No. 5.ESVXX at the
Plenary, to be attached to the FSS in the bands 5925-6425 MHz and
14-14.5 GHz for Region 1 (where applicable). This footnote states that
in the countries named, ESVs will operate as a secondary Maritime
Mobile-Satellite Service (MMSS) under the provisions of Resolution
\[COM4/20\] (WRC‑03). Eighteen countries of the Arab Group signed the
footnote.

Resolution \[COM4/20\] (WRC‑03) was structured similarly to the CITEL
proposal, with a few important differences. The *considerings* in the
new resolution are substantially the same as those in the CITEL
proposal, with a few additions that do not have any regulatory
consequences. There are two *notings* in the resolution that are the
same as the CITEL proposal. One of the *notings* was particularly
important to the United States in that it stated clearly that
administrations may continue to authorize ESV operations under No. 4.4
(non-interference, unprotected basis). This is the mechanism that can be
used to exempt government ESVs from the provisions of this resolution.

The most important differences from the CITEL proposal are in the
*resolves* and the two annexes containing mandatory technical and
operational limits. Resolution \[COM4/20\] (WRC‑03) has only one
*resolves*, which says that ESVs shall operate under the regulatory and
operational provisions of Annex 1 and the technical limitations of Annex
2. This language makes the provisions of the annexes mandatory.

The annexes to Resolution \[COM4/20\] (WRC‑03) now contain several
provisions that were in the non-mandatory recommendation of the CITEL
proposal. Of particular note are the provisions for identification and
immediate cessation of emissions if instructed to do so by a competent
authority. It was felt that this was a reasonable compromise that would
be required of U.S. licensees in any case.

The most contentious issue in the Annex 2 technical limitations was the
minimum diameter for ESV antennas. In the end, the Conference decided to
allow ESV antennas as small as 0.6 meters in the 14-14.5 MHz band, under
the condition that these antennas would not have any greater probability
to cause interference than an antenna of 1.2 m---and that they would
meet the protection requirements of the FSS intersystem coordination
agreement. These restrictions will limit the deployment of these
antennas to specific areas of the world and to low-power emissions.

Resolution \[COM4/20\] (WRC‑03) encourages administrations to cooperate
with other administrations seeking prior agreements for ESV operation
within the minimum distance. It also encourages them to take into
account the provisions of Recommendation \[COM4/B\] (WRC‑03), which
contains non-mandatory guidelines that can be used by administrations
for structuring these agreements.

2.  *Sharing between NGSO and GSO systems (Agenda Item 1.29)*

The delegates considered the results of studies related to Resolutions
136 (WRC-2000) and 78 (WRC-2000) dealing with sharing between NGSO and
GSO systems.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: Resolution 78 (on the development of
procedures in case the operational or additional operational limits in
Article 22 are exceeded) invited the ITU-R to undertake the appropriate
regulatory studies to develop procedures in cases where the operational
or additional operational epfd (down) limits were exceeded at an
operational GSO earth station.

Sub-Issue 1: Applying the current Article 15 (Interference) procedures.
The basis for the U.S. proposal, NOC, was that existing procedures can
be applied without modifications to the RR.

Sub-Issue 2: Modification of Article 22 (space services). The basis for
the U.S. proposal was to direct administrations toward the procedures
for addressing infringements, (i.e., modify No. 22.5I to refer
administrations to Article 15 (Section V))**.**

Sub-Issue 3: Suppression of Resolution 78 (WRC-2000). The U.S. proposal
was to suppress Resolution 78. No further studies were needed to develop
specific procedures in case the operational or additional operational
limits in Article 22 are exceeded.

Sub-Issue 4: Adoption of a new Resolution containing procedures in case
the operational or additional operational limits in Article 22 are
exceeded. The U.S. position was that the current regulatory procedures
contained in Article 15 are sufficient and can be applied to
infringements of Article 22.

Meanwhile, on Resolution 136, the United States signed onto a CITEL
proposal to modify the resolution in order to extend the studies for
another ITU-R cycle, and to provide a non-exclusive list of subjects to
address during those studies.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The divided camps on this
issue during WRC-2003 were CITEL and CEPT on the one hand, opposing the
views of South Korea, Japan, and the Arab States, on the other. The
latter administrations proposed specific procedures to be incorporated
in the RR. These procedures were to address the possibility of an NGSO
system exceeding the operational or additional operational limits in
Article 22, and to facilitate the expeditious return of the NGSO
transmission power to the required levels.

The U.S. delegation met with Korean and Japanese delegations to discuss
the opposing views. The United States realized that the main concern of
Japan and South Korea was the lack of software that was supposed to be
supplied to the BR, so that the BR could verify that an NGSO was meeting
the required epfd validation limits. They were not as concerned with the
operational and additional operational limits, which were supposed to be
addressed under this agenda item.

Two meetings with Korean and Japanese delegates yielded a stalemate,
with neither party moving from its original position. Before the third
meeting, a Japanese delegate spoke to the U.S. delegation about a
compromise, referring to recommendations in a non-mandatory way in No.
22.5I. The U.S. did not agree verbally to this compromise, but knew that
this was a possible solution.

During the third meeting, the Korean delegation placed a new proposal on
the table. Similar text was mentioned by the Japanese delegation
regarding No. 22.5I and a resolution to address the lack of the epfd
validation software. Initially, the resolution incorporated strong words
stating that if an administration did not provide the epfd validation
software to the BR before its notification stage, then the network would
be deleted. The Korean delegation's concern was not to allow a non-GSO
network to be notified without the BR verifying that the network met the
epfd limits. Over the course of two more meetings, the United States
agreed to text that compliments Circular CR/176 in the resolution. The
United States also agreed to the additional text in No. 22.5I.

Therefore, the following text has been added to the end of No. 22.5I:
"and the provisions of Article 15 (Section V) apply. In addition,
relevant ITU-R Recommendations should be used by administrations."

Resolution 78 and 137 were suppressed. Resolution 136 has been modified
for future studies and resides on the agenda for WRC-2010. The
Conference developed a Resolution 85 to address the lack of epfd
validation software. Pursuant to the adoption of this resolution, the
Bureau indicated that, in principle, this resolution would enter into
force on July 5, 2003---and would be applicable to coordination-request
and notification-filing submissions received by the BR after that date.
The BR understood, however, that the intention of the Conference would
be to also apply *resolves* 1 and 2 of that resolution during its
examination to all NGSO FSS systems subject to epfd limits of Article 22
that had been received to date by the Bureau and not already covered by
Circular CR/176. Similarly, the Bureau would establish coordination
requirements for all non-GSO FSS systems and specific earth stations
subject to the provisions of Nos. 9.7A and 9.7B received to date by
applying *resolves* 4. In any case, *resolves* 5 will apply.

All U.S. objectives were met regarding Agenda Item 1.29.

3.  *Resolution 86. (Agenda Item 1.30)*

This agenda item involved possible changes to the procedures for the
advance publication, coordination, and notification of satellite
networks**.**

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objective was to facilitate the
reduction in the current ITU backlog of satellite coordination and
notification requests. It also wanted to simplify the coordination and
notification process by adopting greater use of the orbital arc concept
and reducing the amount of information to be submitted in satellite
network filings. Additionally, the U.S. supported proposals to:

a)  Resolve the inequitable situation at the coordination stage for
    satellite networks coordinating under RR 5.488 and RR 5.491 (which
    was caused by the BR-developed note/rule for internal guidance
    concerning the constraint of "national and sub-regional systems");

b)  Add revisions to Article 9 and Appendices 5 and 7, in order to add
    typical mobile earth stations to the coordination provisions in
    bi-directional bands; and

c)  Add a footnote to Article 9 on coordination of typical stations.

The U.S. objectives regarding several foreign proposals were to block
any such proposals if they prejudiced U.S. interests.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The CITEL proposal for
extending the orbital-arc concept and the reduction in the information
required to be submitted were generally supported by all three Regions,
were accepted by the WRC, and were included in the RR.

Based on the coordination priority that would have resulted from the WRC
decision on footnotes RR 5.488 and RR 5.491 and the BR NOTE, this was a
very difficult issue to resolve. When the issue was narrowed to priority
at one orbital location, an agreement was reached between the
Netherlands and Japan (Panamsat satellite) to give neither side any
priority. This issue will most likely warrant additional discussion by
the Radio Regulations Board (RRB). The United States was successful in
modifying Article 9 and Appendices 5 and 7 to satisfy national
requirements. The United States was not successful in modifying the RR
by adding a footnote to Article 9 to highlight that coordination is
allowed between typical stations on a bilateral basis.

-   Meanwhile, the following foreign proposals were considered by the
    WRC, and the U.S. viewpoint on the outcome is as
    follows:Modification of No. 5.416 to eliminate reference to power
    flux-density (pfd) Table 21-4. RESULT: This proposal to clean up
    redundant rules was accepted. The United States supported this.

-   Cost Recovery implementation. RESULT: This proposal put regulatory
    teeth into cost recovery was accepted with U.S. support.

-   Addition of No. 7.4bis to reflect the version of the RR to be
    applied at coordination and at notification stage. RESULT: This
    proposal, to make it clear in the RR which edition of the RR would
    be applied to notifications, was adopted. The U.S. considered the
    outcome acceptable and in line with its position.

-   Addition of No. 9.6.3 to preclude coordination requirements where
    pfd limits are specified. RESULT: This proposal, to eliminate
    redundant rules in the RR was adopted, with U.S. support.

-   Modification of No. 11.31.1 to reflect the Rule of Procedure (RoP)
    on RR 9.21. RESULT: This proposal to place the text of the RoP on RR
    9.21 findings by the BR into the RR was adopted. The U.S. supported
    the concept.

-   Adoption of a new resolution on rationalization of Articles 9
    and 11. RESULT: This proposal was to study the procedures of
    Articles 9 and 11. The U.S. did not object.

-   Adoption of a new resolution on satellite-network processing
    backlog, encouraging more software development. RESULT: This
    proposal, which appeared to be harmless, was not objected to by the
    U.S and adopted.

-   No extensions of bringing-into-use (BIU) date for satellite networks
    beyond seven years total, with due diligence info provided near the
    end of the seven years. RESULT: This revision deletes the necessity
    of an extension of the BIU date and maintains a seven year deadline.
    The United States supported no requirement to show need for
    extensions and a seven-year deadline but wanted the due diligence
    information to be submitted at five years. Additionally, no extra
    extension will be granted for "launch failures," a position
    supported by the U.S.

-   Modification of Resolution 49 -- Extend the timeframe for submission
    of due diligence for satellite systems submitted before
    November 1997. RESULT: The United States wanted NOC but compromised
    on a one-year extension for submitting due diligence information.

-   RoP on No. 9.35 -- The Arab Group wanted to overturn the RRB's RoP
    on what examinations are to be done at the coordination phase.
    RESULT: The RoP was overturned. The United States supported this
    action but did not favor i) the amount of examinations that the BR
    will be doing on the filings that were examined under the RoP, which
    will result in expending BR resources, and ii) the possible
    retroactivity of the examination of the coordination information at
    the notification phase, with failure to meet the power limits to
    result in an unfavorable finding at the coordination phase.

-   RRB issues -- amendments to Article 13. RESULT: The United States
    was not totally satisfied with some of the language that the Arab
    Group inserted into the RR that may constrain the work of the RRB in
    the future.

-   RR 9.2 -- addressing how far a satellite can be moved on the GSO
    before having to restart Advance Publication (+/- X degrees).
    RESULT: The final result was 6 degrees. While the United States is
    concerned that administrations may try to reduce this number at
    future WRCs, the result was acceptable.

    1.  *Regulatory provisions for high-altitude platform stations
        (HAPS) at 2 GHz (Agenda Item 1.33)*

In this agenda item, the delegates considered possible modifications of
Resolution 221 to update the provisional power flux density (pfd)
limits.

[U.S. Objectives:]{.underline} The U.S. objectives were to replace the
provisional pfd limits contained in Resolution 221 (to protect
terrestrial services from HAPS operations) with those developed by the
ITU-R. The United States also wanted modifications to Article 11 for
explicit notification of HAPS to commit administrations to apply the
provisions of Resolution 221 and its associated limits.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Other proposals (i.e.,
from CEPT and APT) were very similar and in line with the CPM Report and
the U.S./CITEL proposals.* * There was no disagreement concerning the
proposed pfd value revisions contained in the CPM report. The
disagreements concerned consultation versus coordination of proposed
HAPS operations and how soon proposed HAPS operations would need to be
notified before going into operation. The Arab administrations proposed
to coordinate HAPS frequency assignments under Article 9 as if they were
a satellite service, not a terrestrial service. The U.S. Delegation
proposed that HAPS frequency assignments be notified five years before
coming into use, while the APT proposed three years.

At the Conference, Resolution 221 was modified to reflect the revised
pfd values. It now includes an explicit obligation for administrations
using HAPS to notify their use under Article 11. A proposal from the
Arab states to coordinate HAPS frequency assignments under Article 9 was
defeated.  Some administrations added their names to a new footnote that
asked for more protection at their borders from a HAPS transmitting in a
neighboring country.  This more stringent pfd limit at the border can be
met without modifications or other restrictions, due to the antenna
design of some HAPS operations.

2.  *PFD Limits for NGSO Broadcasting-Satellite Service (Sound), BSS(S)
    operations in the 2630-2655 MHz band (Agenda Item 1.34)*

The 2630-2655 MHz band is part of the 2500-2690 MHz band identified on a
worldwide basis for IMT-2000. Japan proposed a BSS(S) system operating
from a highly-elliptical orbit (HEO) in the 2630-2655 MHz band. The
expected location of this HEO system in orbit could give rise to
interference with U.S. terrestrial operators in Alaska, Hawaii and the
west coast of the continental United States (CONUS).

The 2500-2690 MHz band is allocated in the United States for Fixed and
Mobile Services. The expectation is that the band will be used to
provide a variety of fixed and mobile Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)
when the current FCC rulemaking addressing this band is completed. There
are no plans for the U.S. to license satellite services in this band.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objective was for the Conference
to adopt pfd limits for the BSS(S) operating in the 2630-2655 MHz band
that would protect U.S. licensees and future users of the band in the
United States from potential harmful interference from NGSO BSS(S)
systems.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: WRC-03 agreed to a new pfd
mask for NGSO BSS(S) transmitting space stations with respect to
terrestrial services using the 2500-2690 MHz band. This mask provides
the protection to U.S. terrestrial interests in the band that was sought
as an outcome of the Conference.

As part of the overall compromise related to this agenda item, it was
decided to allow South Korea and Japan to also have access to the
2605-2630 MHz band for BSS(S). This resulted in four footnotes
(5.418*bis*, 5.418A*bis*, 5.418B*bis*, and 5.418C*bis*) being added to
the Table of Frequency Allocations that spell out the conditions under
which access to the 2605-2655 MHz band for BSS(S) would apply. In
addition, existing footnotes 5.418, 5.418A, 5.418B, and 5.418C were
modified. The modification to footnote 5.148 and the addition of
footnote 5.418*bis* specify a pfd mask for GSO BSS(S) systems operating
in the band 2605-2655 MHz. The pfd mask for GSO BSS(S) is entirely new
as a result of WRC-03 deliberations. Resolution 539 (WRC-2000) had only
specified an interim pfd mask for NGSO BSS(S) in the 2500-2690 MHz band.

19. *Adequacy of shortwave broadcasting spectrum between 4 and 10 MHz
    (Agenda item 1.36)*

This item examined the possible identification of additional spectrum
for the Broadcasting Service in the high-frequency (HF) bands.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. objective was to obtain as much
as 250 kHz of additional Broadcasting Service allocations in the HF
bands.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The U.S. proposal was not
supported by any other administration. The consensus, later supported by
the United States, was that decisions on additional HF allocations for
the Broadcasting Service would be deferred until WRC-07.

This decision for Agenda Item 1.36 is summarized in Resolution
\[COM4/11\] (WRC-03) concerning identification of additional spectrum
for the Broadcasting Service in the HF bands. It notes as follows:
"Noting that further studies are required on the potential allocation of
the identified between 4 and 10 MHz that may be considered for
allocation to the broadcasting service, WRC-03 invites the ITU-R to
carry out studies on this matter, taking into account technical,
operational, economic and other relevant factors, including how
introduction of digital emissions will affect the HF broadcasting
requirements and how such reallocations will affect other services using
these bands; and further resolves to invite WRC-07 to conclude on
sufficient additional spectrum requirements for the broadcasting
service, taking into account the interest of all affected services."

After considerable debate, future WRC-07 Agenda Item 1.13 was adopted to
conclude on additional HF broadcasting spectrum requirements. The
controversy centered on whether to consider all HF spectrum (3--30 MHz),
or just that located between 4 and 10 MHz. The WRC-03 chairman "took the
room temperature," and the U.S.-supported proposal to limit
consideration to only that spectrum between 4 and 10 MHz was adopted.

20. *Satellite networks using highly elliptical orbits (HEOs) (Agenda
    item 1.37)*

Agenda Item 1.37 considered the regulatory and technical provisions for
satellite networks using HEOs.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States sought to prevent any
special sub-category from being identified or defined for satellite
networks that use HEOs. Therefore, the United States sought no new
definitions in Article 1 and no new allocations for satellite networks
employing HEOs in Article 5. The United States also sought to prevent
any regulatory limitation of Appendix 4 values for NGSO networks in
order to allow full flexibility to the operator. Further, the United
States sought to prevent any relaxation of the existing Article 22
single-entry epfd limits in the 19.7-20.2 GHz band that quantify the
level of interference deemed acceptable to a GSO network from an NGSO
FSS network. Accordingly, it sought no changes to the Resolution 76
aggregate limits.

In the 4/6 GHz bands, the United States sought no new Article 22 EPFD
limits. In the 4 GHz band, the United States sought an 8 dB relaxation
of the Article 21 pfd limits for non-GSO networks, in order to
adequately protect the fixed service while not unduly constraining NGSO
satellite networks. Further, the United States sought to make no changes
to the existing pfd limits in the 10/11/18/19 GHz bands, since limits
for non-GSO networks were already specified in Article 21. Finally, to
protect currently allocated services and operating networks in the
1467-1492 MHz band, the United States sought to prevent premature
replacement of No. 22.2 with a coordination regime that would place both
GSO BSS(S) and NGSO BSS(S) networks in the band on an equal footing.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: With respect to
definitions or allocations regarding satellite networks employing HEOs,
no contributions were proposed by any administration to specifically
define networks employing highly elliptical orbits. So the decision was
made to make no changes to Article 1 or Article 5.

Regarding epfd limits in the 4 GHz band, the U.S. Delegation became
isolated in its NOC position once deliberations began. Most
administrations---including others within CITEL---saw an opportunity to
appropriately protect their GSO FSS networks, which already had very
little margin, given that only a few administrations had NGSO FSS
systems operating or planned for the band (Russia, Luxembourg, United
States). They held this view as long as the limits would be permanent
and not to be studied at the next conference. Through informal
discussions with CEPT, a compromise was eventually reached to split the
difference between CEPT's epfd limits corresponding to a 1% proposal and
the 0.7% value suggested by CITEL countries. This resulted in an
addition to Table 22-1E for the 4 GHz band epfd limits, a modification
to Table 22-2 to add epfd limits for the 5925-6725 MHz band, and
resulting modifications to Nos. 22.5C, 22.5CA, and 22.5H---all in
Article 22.

Regarding epfd limits in the 19.7-20.2 GHz band, given that no other
administration supported Japan's proposal to relax the epfd limits, a
compromise was reached to add a new resolution to provide a framework
for ongoing studies within the ITU-R Working Party 4A process. These
studies seek to develop equivalent protection to GSO networks from
certain types of non-GSO FSS networks producing long-term interference.
In addition, the resolution includes instructions to the BR to
facilitate a mechanism for Japan---as well as other administrations that
seek to employ this compromise---to obtain a definitive favorable
finding at the notification stage if they reach agreement with
administrations on whose territories exceed the Article 22 epfd limits.
This also necessitated a modification to No. 22.5CA to point to the new
resolution.

Regarding pfd limits in the 4 GHz band, various proposals differed by as
much 24 dB. Lengthy negotiations reduced the difference to about 6 dB.
Agreement was finally reached to limit the pfd from NGSO systems as a
function of the number of simultaneously transmitting satellites in
either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. This idea was conceived by
CEPT as a means to protect the Fixed Service and included a mechanism
that may trigger review after five NGSO systems become operational in
either hemisphere.

Once the more contentious 4 GHz issues were resolved, agreements were
reached in the 11 and 12 GHz bands by simply tightening the pfd limits
by 3 dB at the more contentious low angles of arrival. These agreements
resulted in changes to Article 21, with modifications to Table 21-4 and
the addition of footnotes 21.16.X1, 21.16.X2, 21.16.X3, and 21.16.X4
that apply only to NGSO networks characterized as using HEOs. In the 18
and 19 GHz bands, agreement was reached to study the matter and add a
new resolution. This provided the basis for a WRC-07 agenda item to
determine whether the current pfd limits for NGSO systems in the FSS in
Article 21 are adequate to protect the Fixed Service without unduly
constraining the use of these NGSO FSS systems. The future agenda item
also will determine whether there are measures that could be implemented
by the fixed service to mitigate interference from FSS space stations.

In the 1467-1492 MHz band there was a lack of support for CEPT's
proposal to replace No. 22.2 with a coordination regime under No. 9.11A.
It was apparent that studies were necessary to protect allocated
services, so the decision was to not make any changes to Article 5 at
this time.

21. *Agenda Item 7.1*

This agenda item called for considering the report of the Director of
the Radiocommunication Bureau on the activities of the
Radiocommunication Sector since WRC-2000 and the report of the RRB, as
well as Resolution 80 (Rev.WRC-2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. Delegation supported many of the
Bureau\'s suggestions, which were provided in advance of the Conference.
Those contrary to U.S. interests were not supported. With regard to the
Board's Report and its relation to Resolution 80, the U.S. approach was
to support examination of equitable access to satellite orbits by
developing countries while protecting U.S. interests.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The U.S. Delegation found
many of the suggestions from the Bureau acceptable, and the Conference
adopted many of the suggestions from the BR concerning inconsistencies
and outdated provisions in the RR. The principle concern for the U.S.
government was the suggestion by the BR that footnote No. 5.433 was
outdated and should be deleted or updated. The U.S. position was not to
revise this footnote, because it provided a primary allocation to the
Radiolocation Service in Regions 2 and 3. Since there were no related
proposals or documents out of COM 4 or its Working Group (WG) 4A, this
footnote was not addressed and remained unchanged, to U.S. satisfaction.

The report from the RRB principally concerned its deliberations on
requests in Resolution 80 (Rev.WRC-2000), as well as requests from the
United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Laos to extend the regulatory time limit
for bringing a satellite network into use. Since there were no proposals
submitted by any country concerning Resolution 80, WG 4A did not address
the matter. The resolution was later included on the agenda of the
Plenary for discussion along with Resolutions 2 and 4, but no specific
mention was made there, either. This result was satisfactory to the
United States. Resolution 80 remains on the agenda of the next
conference, however.

The Plenary did grant the requests from Laos and the UAE. This was
contrary to the position of the United States and a few other countries.
However, after the Europeans worked out their technical problems with
the Arabsat Organization, and the UAE delegation reduced its request for
extension from four to two satellite networks, European objections
disappeared and the requests gained vital support.

# COM 5 -- Allocations and Associated Issues {#com-5-allocations-and-associated-issues .Heading-0}

The chairperson of COM 5 was Mr. Alan Jamieson (New Zealand). The
committee's work was divided into 5 working groups, which were chaired
by Mr. Markus Dreis (Germany), Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim (United Arab
Emirates), Mr. Vincent Meens (France), Mr. John Zuzek (United States)
and Dr. Akira Hashimoto (Japan). The U.S. spokesperson was Cecily
Holiday. COM 5 dealt with 19 agenda items, one of which (agenda item
1.11) was shared with COM 4. These agenda items are discussed below.

# *4.5.1 Public safety and disaster relief (Agenda item 1.3)* {#public-safety-and-disaster-relief-agenda-item-1.3 .Heading-0}

This agenda item was to consider identifying globally or regionally
harmonized spectrum bands, to the extent practicable, for the
implementation of future advanced solutions to meet the needs of public
protection agencies. These would include agencies that respond to
emergency situations and provide disaster relief. Further, the agenda
item was to consider any regulatory provisions, as necessary, taking
into account Resolution 645 (WRC 2000).

[U.S. Objectives:]{.underline} The United States had three primary
objectives for this agenda item:

1.  The U.S. view was that efforts to harmonize public
    protection/disaster relief spectrum should be achieved through an
    ITU Resolution, which could provide useful guidance to countries;

2.  In order to avoid misinterpretation of the regulatory status of
    systems supporting these applications---and any perceived
    constraints on the ability of individual administrations to use
    spectrum in which they currently operate---there should be no change
    to Article 5 (Table of Frequency Allocations); and

3.  Resolution 645 should be suppressed, on the basis that the necessary
    regulatory requirements would be achieved.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}. WRC-03 agreed to an ITU
Resolution that provided non-binding guidance to administrations and
manufacturers on using the following frequency ranges for future
advanced solutions for public protection and disaster relief (PPDR):

-   Region 1: 380-470 MHz as the frequency range within the band
    380-385/ 390‑395 MHz, which is a preferred core harmonized band for
    permanent public protection activities within certain agreed
    countries of Region 1;

-   Region 2: 746-806 MHz, 806-869 MHz, and 4 940-4 990 MHz;

-   Region 3: 406.1-430 MHz, 440-470 MHz, 806-824/851-869 MHz,
    4 940‑4 990 MHz and 5 850-5 925 MHz.

The United States successfully avoided identification---global or
otherwise---of PPDR spectrum in treaty text of the international Radio
Regulations. The U.S. Delegation was also successful in suppressing the
existing Resolution 645 of WRC-2000 on Public Protection and Disaster
Relief.

Finally, the Delegation succeeded in deleting this agenda item from the
WRC-2007 agenda. Further studies will be conducted within the ITU-R,
which could lead to an ITU-R recommendation with respect to public
protection and disaster relief. From the U.S. viewpoint, all of the
objectives relating to Agenda Item 1.3 were achieved.

# *4.5.2 Fixed-Satellite Service and Aeronautical Radionavigation Service 5 GHz Allocations (Agenda Item 1.4)*  {#fixed-satellite-service-and-aeronautical-radionavigation-service-5-ghz-allocations-agenda-item-1.4 .Heading-0}

This item asked the delegates to consider the results of studies related
to Resolution 114 (WRC-95), which dealt with the use of the 5091-5150
MHz band by the Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (Earth-to-space) (limited
to non-GSO MSS feeder links). Also, the delegates reviewed the
allocations to the Aeronautical Radionavigation Service (ARNS) and FSS
in the 5091-5150 MHz band.

[U.S. Objectives:]{.underline} The United States had three objectives
for this agenda item:

1.  Modification of Footnote No. 5.444A to extend the dates by eight
    years, as follows:

    a.  Change to January 1, 2018, the end date for applicability of
        Resolution 114 to MSS feeder links.;

    b.  Change to January 1, 2018, the end date for applicability of the
        requirements that international standard systems for the ARNS
        that cannot be met in the band 5000-5091 MHz shall take
        precedence over other uses of the band;

    c.  Change to January 1, 2016, the date after which no new
        assignments may be made to MSS feeder links; and

    d.  Change to January 2018 the date after which MSS feeder links
        become secondary.

2.  Modify Resolution 114 to take into account the possibility of new
    aeronautical systems utilizing the 5091-5150 MHz band in the future.

3.  Make consequential changes to Footnote No. 5.444.

[Activities and Accomplishments:]{.underline} The U.S. Delegation
achieved all of its stated objectives, except for changing the date
after which no new MSS assignments may be made to MSS feeder links. The
United States preferred that date to be 2018, but the MSS proponents and
the U.S. Delegation agreed on a compromise to advance that date to 2012.

*4.5.3 Mobile Service Allocation for RLAN Devices in the 5 GHz Range
(Agenda Item 1.5)*

In accordance with Resolution 736 (WRC-2000), the delegates to WRC-2003
considered regulatory provisions and spectrum requirements for new and
additional allocations to the Mobile, Fixed, Earth Exploration-Satellite
and Space Research Services. They also reviewed the allocation status of
the Radiolocation Service in the frequency range 5150-5725 MHz, with a
view to upgrading it, taking into account the results of ITU-R studies.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U.S. objectives on this agenda item
were to provide for global use of Radio Local Area Networks ("RLANs"),
to provide additional spectrum for the Earth Exploration-Satellite and
Space Research Services, to upgrade the status of the Radiolocation
service and to obtain technical restraints on RLANs to protect the
Radiolocation service from potential interference. The United States
also sought to achieve unrestricted outdoor RLAN operation in the
5250-5350 MHz band.

[Activities and accomplishments]{.underline}: With strong leadership by
the United States, WRC-2003 adopted a primary allocation for Wireless
Access Systems ("WAS") including RLANs, in the 5150-5250 MHz, 5250-5350
MHz, and 5470-5725 MHz bands. In addition, primary allocations were made
to the Earth-Exploration-Satellite Service ("EESS") in the 5460-5570 MHz
band and to the Space Research Service ("SRS") in the 5350-5570 MHz
band. Further, in the 5350-5650 MHz band, secondary allocations to the
Radiolocation Service were upgraded to primary.

WRC-2003 also adopted a resolution on technical and operational
requirements to promote sharing of 5 GHz frequencies. The resolution,
based on technical investigations led by the United States, calls for
the use by RLANs of dynamic frequency selection to detect the presence
of a radiolocation signal on a channel and then to avoid that channel.
It also calls for the use by RLANs of transmit power control ("TPC") to
lower the average RLAN power seen by radiolocation systems.

The United States also achieved flexibility in the regulations and
resolutions that will allow outdoor RLAN use of the 5250-5350 MHz band,
if administrations choose to allow it.

# *4.5.4 NGSO Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) feeder links (agenda item 1.6)* {#ngso-mobile-satellite-service-mss-feeder-links-agenda-item-1.6 .Heading-0}

This agenda item was to consider regulatory measures to protect MSS
feeder links (Earth-to-space) that operate in the 5150-5250 MHz band,
taking into account the latest ITU-R recommendations (for example,
Recommendations ITU-R S.1426, ITU-R S.1427 and ITU-R M.1454).

[U. S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U. S. objective was to protect U.S.
MSS feeder links.

[Activities and accomplishments]{.underline}: Protecting MSS feeder
links was essentially non-controversial. The result was a footnote for
the 5150-5250 MHz band that references a resolution making a
non-mandatory reference to ITU recommendations on protecting MSS feeder
limits. In addition, within the resolution there is a call for continued
studies on calculating aggregate interference levels from RLANS in an
attempt to determine interference sources.

*4.5.5 Broadband Internet access on board aircraft (agenda item 1.11)*

This item was designed to consider extending the MSS (Earth-to-space)
allocation on a secondary basis in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, permitting
operation of the Aeronautical Mobile-Satellite Service as stipulated in
Resolution 216 (Rev. WRC-2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U.S. objective for this agenda item
was to achieve a secondary allocation for the aeronautical
mobile-satellite service in the band 14.0-14.5.GHz. This would allow
commercial rollout of services offering broadband Internet access to
airline passengers and others on board aircraft.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: At WRC-2000, the United
States had been successful in including an agenda item to address this
allocation issue. During the preparatory phase for WRC-2003, the United
States pursued adding a secondary Aeronautical Mobile Satellite Service
(AMSS) allocation to the 14-14.5 GHz band. Boeing Connexion plans to use
this allocation to provide broadband Internet access on airplanes. The
United States managed to build widespread support (including a CITEL
Inter-American Proposal) for its position prior to the Conference. The
allocation was provisionally adopted early in the Conference and the
remaining issues were sent to Committee 4 to address concerns by some
countries that believed that regulatory provisions were needed in
addition to an allocation for this service. The United States achieved
its goal of adding a secondary AMSS allocation in the 14 GHz band. That
allocation became effective July 5, 2003.

*4.5.6 Space science issues (Agenda Item 1.12).*

This item was to consider space science services allocations and
regulatory issues, in accordance with Resolution 723 (Rev WRC-2000), and
to review all Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) and Space
Research Service (SRSA) allocations between 35 GHz and 38 GHz.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: This agenda item was essentially composed
of six separate issues, four from the four resolves of Resolution 723,
one from Resolution 730 and one from the Agenda Item itself. The agenda
item with its two resolutions resulted in seven U.S. objectives, as
follows:

1\. (Resolution 723, resolves 1) To block an allocation for the space
research or space operation services (i.e., NOC) in the 225 -- 400 MHz
band;

2\. (Resolution 723, resolves 2) To add the primary SRS (Earth-to-space)
allocation in the band 7145-7235 MHz to the Table of Frequency
Allocations and eliminate the requirement for coordination under No.
9.21 of the Radio Regulations.

3\. (Resolution 723, resolves 3) To eliminate the Inter-Satellite
Service allocation in the 32.0 -- 32.3 GHz band, in order to ensure
protection for reception of extremely sensitive signals from deep space.

4\. (Resolution 723, resolves 4) To upgrade the current secondary SRS
allocation to primary in the 14.8 -- 15.3 GHz band, with suitable limits
to ensure protection of fixed service operations in the band.

5\. (Also Resolution 723, resolves 4) To obtain a primary SRS allocation
in the 25.5 -- 27.0 GHz band.

6\. (Resolution 730) To remove Footnote No. 5.551A in the 35.5 -36 GHz
band. That footnote had a negative impact on the Earth-exploration
satellite service (active).

7\. No change (NOC) for the 36-37 GHz and 37-38 GHz bands.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The outcome of action in
this agenda item is described for each U.S. objective, as follows:

1\. (Resolution 723, resolves 1)---No changefor 225 -- 400 MHz band. A
country footnote allocation in the 258-261 MHz band was approved for the
Russian Federation, China, the Republic of Kazakhstan and Ukraine. This
will provide protection to the Mobile Service, including aeronautical
mobile, and MSS systems. Also, the delegates modified Footnote No.
5.254, which makes a primary MSS allocation, critical to US military
operations, in this band conditional to coordination under No. 9.21. The
concern with the country footnote is that new MSS systems still need to
be prior-coordinated under No. 9.21 and that the new country footnote
allocations may make this more difficult. However, once the MSS
allocation is made, the modification to No. 5.254 will guarantee that
MSS systems have a higher status than the SRS/SOS systems using the new
allocations. Overall, the United States was satisfied with the outcome
on this issue.

2\. (Resolution 723, resolves 2)---Adding the primary SRS allocation in
7145-7235 MHz to the Table of Frequency Allocations. An SRS allocation
was added to the Table, and the WRC eliminated the need for coordination
under 9.21. This represented a full agreement with the U.S. position,
indicating considerable support worldwide for this allocation.

3\. (Resolution 723, resolves 3)---Protecting the SRS by keeping a
deep-space downlink allocation in 31.8-32.3 GHz from being interfered
with by the Inter-Satellite Service in the 32-32.3 GHz band The result
was elimination of the Inter-Satellite Service allocation in the 32.0 --
32.3 GHz band, which met full endorsement by the U.S. Delegation. There
was considerable support worldwide for this result.

4\. (Resolution 723, resolves 4)---Upgrading the secondary SRS
allocation in the 15 GHz band to primary. There was no change in this
band. CITEL withdrew its IAP proposal for the 15 GHz SRS upgrade when it
became apparent that to push the allocation would have resulted in a
detrimental impact on the new 26 GHz allocation or other space science
items.

5\. (Resolution 723, resolves 4)---Creating a primary allocation for SRS
in the 26 GHz band. A primary SRS allocation was gained in the 25.5 --
27.0 GHz band, meeting U.S. objectives. There was considerable support
worldwide for this allocation.

6\. (Resolution 730)---Examining allocations to the space science
services in the band 35-38 GHz. Footnote No. 5.551A was replaced with a
new footnote containing power flux density limits on EESS (active) in
the 35.5 -36 GHz band. The new footnote was demanded largely by France
to ensure protection of radiolocation systems operating in the band.
This footnote, however, will not seriously impact existing or future
Earth exploration-satellite sensor system operations since it represents
an allowable four-fold increase in the current power of these sensor
systems.

7\. A resolution was adopted calling for in-band sharing studies
regarding the EESS (passive) in the 36-37 GHz band. The 37-38 GHz band
remained unchanged (NOC). The new resolution for the 36-37 GHz band
calls for further study on the protection of EESS (passive) systems in
the band and will be included on the agenda for review at WRC-2007.

*4.5.7 High Altitude Platform Stations (HAPS) (except for IMT-2000)
(Agenda Item 1.13)*

This agenda item considered regulatory provisions, and possible
identification of existing frequency allocations, for services that may
be deployed using high-altitude platform stations (HAPS), taking into
account No. S5.543A and the results of the ITU-R studies conducted in
accordance with Resolutions 122 (Rev.WRC-2000) and 734 (WRC-2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States, through a CITEL
proposal, sought to provide for HAPS operations in the 27 GHz and 31 GHz
bands, while protecting FSS operations in the 27 GHz band and passive
services in the band adjacent to 31 GHz. The proposal also sought to
lift the freeze on FSS notifications in the HAPS bands at 47 GHz.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Strong and unified
opposition came from the operators of existing terrestrial systems
within CEPT. At first, CEPT opposed any expansion of the use of the 27
and 31 GHz bands through a resolution, insisting that the traditional
method of adding country names to the existing allocation table
footnotes should be the only way of permitting wider use. To find a
compromise, CITEL, with U.S. support, amended its position to have the
proposed resolution apply to only Regions 2 and 3. CEPT resisted the
expansion to Region 3, arguing that the long, common inter-regional
border between Regions 1 and 3 would result in Region 3 HAPS systems'
interfering with terrestrial systems into Region 1. Since Regions 2 and
1 are widely separated geographically, CEPT had no strong basis for
opposing the proposal's application to Region 2, and the CITEL proposal
was adopted by the Conference on that basis.

With Regions 1 and 3 excluded from the resolution broadening use of the
27 and 31 GHz bands, six nations in Regions 1 and 3 achieved the same
goal, nonetheless, by adding their names to the existing footnotes.
These countries were South Korea, Malaysia, the Russian Federation,
Philippines, Uzbekistan, Lesotho, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgystan.

CEPT and APT also opposed CITEL's proposal to lift the freeze on FSS
filings at 47 GHz. Again, the accepted compromise was to lift the freeze
only for GSO systems that served Region 2 exclusively. Resolutions 122
and 734 were amended and continued. These resolutions call for continued
study of spectrum that could be identified for use by HAPS, and for
study of interference between HAPS and the Fixed and Fixed Satellite
Services. Although the United States would have preferred a global
allocation, proponents of this new technology will be able to implement
service in Region 2 and a large part of Region 3.

*4.5.8 Radionavigation Satellite Service (RNSS) (agenda item 1.15)*

The agenda item called for delegates to review the results of studies
concerning the Radionavigation Satellite Service, in accordance with
Resolutions 604 (WRC-2000), 605 (WRC-2000) and 606 (WRC-2000). The
objective was to ensure that RNSS systems did not cause harmful
interference to various other services in the band.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U.S. did not have a proposal
concerning the compatibility issue involving RNSS and radio astronomy.
The U.S. proposal for RNSS and aeronautical systems' compatibility
called for aggregate protection criteria to protect Aeronautical
Radionavigation Service (ARNS) from RNSS interference. The U.S. proposal
for RNSS and radiolocation systems' compatibility called for no PFD
limit.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The RNSS/radio astronomy
compatibility issue was essentially resolved by adopting the result of
the CPM Report.

RNSS/ARNS compatibility issues were agreed mostly as a result of the
work done earlier and as documented in the CPM Report. The exception was
the possible use of single-entry power flux density (pfd) limits and
potential Article 9 Coordination. Single-entry pfd limits had been
agreed to, to some extent, but not as hard limits in the Radio
Regulations. The Article 9 coordination for all RNSS bands was accepted,
with specific conditions to include coordination taking effect on
January 1, 2005. That coordination will be with real RNSS systems rather
than paper systems. Further, no agenda item for any further RNSS studies
was agreed to for WRC-07. The RNSS/radiolocation compatibility issue was
resolved without many problems, as there had been a consensus coming
into the Conference against power limits on RNSS in this band.

The U.S. government deployed a multi-dimensional approach to achieve its
objectives. An extensive network of outreach was carried out to garner
solid support from some six-to-eight countries. Consultants and
regulatory experts represented the U.S. position in international
meetings. Technical experts were present to conduct studies, analysis,
simulation and testing. This multi-layered approach was implemented
throughout the three-year WRC-03 preparation cycle. At WRC-03 the only
issue that was prolonged was the Article 9 coordination matter, upon
which lengthy negotiations took place. Despite hard negotiating
postures, particularly by some of the Europeans, a compromise on this
issue was reached in the last days of the Conference.

# *4.5.9 Little LEO Feeder Links (agenda item 1.16)* {#little-leo-feeder-links-agenda-item-1.16 .Heading-0}

The delegates considered whether to allocate, on a worldwide basis,
feeder links in bands around 1.4 GHz to the non-GSO MSS with service
links operating below 1 GHz. The delegates had to take into account the
results of ITU-R studies conducted in response to Resolution 127
(WRC-2000), provided that due recognition was given to the passive
services---and taking into account No. S5.340. The feeder links would be
employed by "Little LEO" (Low Earth Orbit) satellite systems, freeing
them up from sharing spectrum for feeder links in other bands.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U. S. proposal was to obtain a
primary allocation in the 1390-1392 MHz and 1430-1432 MHz bands for use
by Little LEO feeder links. The FCC decided in a rulemaking proceeding
to make the 1390-1392 MHz and 1430-1432 MHz bands available, provided
WRC-2003 made this allocation internationally.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Throughout the Conference,
the U.S. Delegation faced intense opposition to its proposal for a
primary allocation in these bands. The main U.S. commercial proponent
had engaged late in the ITU and U.S. preparatory processes. As a result,
many countries and regions came to WRC-03 opposing an allocation for
Little LEO feeder links. Through intensive outreach and careful
compromise, however, the U.S. moved to a successful resolution of this
item.

The Conference agreed to text that would make a secondary allocation for
Little LEO feeder links. This allocation incorporates a resolution
containing specific conditions that were placed on the allocation. The
first *resolves* of that resolution indicates that the allocation "shall
not be used until the completion of ITU‑R studies on all identified
compatibility issues . . . and the results of these studies shall be
reported to \[WRC‑07/a future competent conference\], and the decisions
to be taken by \[WRC-07/a future competent conference\] accordingly." In
effect, the implementation of the allocation is contingent on the
decisions of delegates at WRC-2007 or another future conference.

Meanwhile, the United States confronted further opposition in Plenary.
The remaining issues standing in the way of the allocation were
eliminated in a second *resolves,* which recommends that "decisions
taken at \[WRC-07/a future competent conference\] . . . apply to all
NGSO FSS systems in these bands filed after 5 Jul 2003." This gives U.S.
Little LEO companies an opportunity to begin work immediately on studies
that would effect the allocation.

*4.5.10 Upgrade for Radiolocation Service in the 2900-3100 MHz band
(agenda item 1.17)*

The agenda item considered upgrading the Radiolocation Service
allocation at 2900-3100 MHz to primary.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U.S. objective for this agenda item
was to upgrade the worldwide secondary Radiolocation Service to primary
status in the 2900-3100 MHz, with a footnote to protect the
Radionavigation Service.

[Activities and Accomplishments:]{.underline} The Radiolocation Service
was upgraded to primary status in all three ITU Regions. There was
agreement among all the proposals from administrations to do so. The
only contentious issue was the need to add a footnote to protect the
radionavigation service and maintain the current status between the
Radiolocation and Radionavigation services. CEPT countries and Australia
were determined to obtain the upgrade without a footnote because they
wanted coequal status between these services. Ultimately, CEPT relented
and accepted a footnote that was very close to the footnote proposed by
CITEL and APT.

The following footnote was adopted to protect radars of the
Radionavigation Service:

> **"**5.BA01 In the band 2900-3100 MHz, stations in the Radiolocation
> Service shall not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection
> from, radar systems in the Radionavigation Service." 

The compromise was to include the words "radar systems in" in the
footnote. This was acceptable to the U.S. and met U.S. objectives.

*4.5.11 Primary allocation for Fixed Service (FS) in the 17.3-17.7 GHz
band (agenda item 1.18)*

The delegates considered a primary allocation for the Fixed Service in
the 17.3-17.7 GHz band for Region 1, taking into account the primary
allocations to various services in all three Regions.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. Neither the United States nor CITEL had a
proposal for this agenda item, because it was viewed primarily as a
Region 1 issue. However, the United States was concerned with the
possible interference that such an allocation might cause to future
Region 2 Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) operations in the same
band. The United States believed strongly that any introduction of FS
into Region 1 should not be allowed, in any way, to impede the future
introduction of BSS in the band in Region 2. Moreover, if a primary
allocation were to be made to the FS, the United States believed a
footnote, or some other regulatory provision, was needed to specifically
state that this allocation shall not impede the introduction of Region 2
BSS.

Several Region 1 countries indicated a desire to use the 17.3-17.7 GHz
band for FS. The United States and many other administrations believed
that this allocation should not be pursued until studies were completed
to assess the impact of a Region 1 primary FS allocation on existing
services, as well as future Region 2 BSS in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. The
U.S. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) industry was particularly
concerned, because U.S. DBS operators have had difficulty in providing
adequate 12 GHz DBS service to Alaska because Russia has demanded strict
adherence to pfd limits to protect their FS in Siberia.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The Conference decided not
to make a Region 1 primary FS allocation in the band 17.3-17.7 GHz. It
further decided that Region 1 administrations requiring an FS allocation
should add their country name to a footnote in the Radio Regulations
identifying that country as having a Region 1 secondary FS allocation
within its borders.

There was no debate on the Conference's decision to add Region 1 country
footnotes for a secondary FS allocation within country borders.

*4.5.12 New service link spectrum for Little LEOs (agenda item 1.20)*

This agenda item called for delegates to consider additional
allocations, on a worldwide basis, for the non-GSO MSS with service
links operating below 1 GHz, in accordance with Resolution 214 (Rev.
WRC-2000).\
\
[U. S. Objectives]{.underline}. The US had no proposal for this agenda
item.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The U.S. position going
into WRC-2003 was that no new spectrum was necessary under this agenda
item for Little LEO service links. The Conference agreed with the United
States, and no new spectrum was allocated. This agenda item was\
successfully concluded early in the Conference.

*4.5.13 Reducing the size of GEO FSS earth stations (agenda item 1.24)*

Delegates were asked to review the usage of the 13.75-14 GHz band in
accordance with Resolution 733(WRC-2000), with a view to addressing
sharing conditions. A major element of this agenda item was the proposal
to relax the restriction on antenna size, which would lead to increased
use of the band for FSS.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The core U.S. objective for this agenda
item was to protect radar and space research systems in the band
(including communications vital to the Space Shuttle and International
Space Station programs) from harmful interference that might be caused
by a potential relaxation of the sharing conditions with FSS operations.

The United States also sought to increase the frequency bandwidth (from
6 MHz to 10 MHz, centered on 13.775 GHz) for which Space Research
Service (SRS) is protected via e.i.r.p. density limitations on the FSS
uplinks. This would be achieved by changing Footnote No. 5.503 to
provide an emission mask to protect SRS.

[Activities and accomplishments]{.underline}: Throughout WRC-2003, the
U.S. Delegation faced great international pressure to accept a sharing
solution that would allow increased use of this band by satellite
operators. However, given the importance of U.S. systems in the band,
the United States remained firm that any sharing arrangement must
protect radiolocation (radars) and SRS. FSS interests around the globe
sought to relax the restriction on FSS earth station satellite dishes to
be used in this band that required them to be at least 4.5 meters in
diameter. Countries supporting change in this agenda item sought
permission for the FSS dishes to be smaller, thus potentially sparking
more widespread commercial use. The United States opposed any such
reduction in satellite dish size, because of concerns that it would
cause harmful interference to radiolocation (i.e., Navy radar)
operations and SRS activities.

This matter was resolved during WRC-2003 by an agreement to allow FSS
access into the 13.75-14 GHz band with earth station antennas no smaller
than 1.2 meters. To resolve the SRS and FSS sharing matter, text
proposed for Footnote No. 5.503 at the CPM was adopted by the WRC, with
minor editorial modifications. This is reflected in Article 5, FN 5.503
MOD of the International Radio Regulations. Radiolocation protection
measures are found in modifications to FN 5.502 and are now reflected in
Article 5 FN 5.502 MOD of the Radio Regulation. In addition,
modifications were made to the chart in Appendix 21 and Table 7b in
Annex 7, which were consequential to the modification of the sharing
conditions.

The final result was that Footnote No. 5.502 in Article 5 of the Radio
Regulations was modified to allow FSS earth station satellite dishes in
the band of 1.2 meters in diameter, and power levels not to exceed a
limit of --115 dBW/m^2^ more than 1% of the time. Although the U.S.
Delegation did not succeed, against overwhelming opposition, in its
original no-change proposal, it did succeed in negotiating power limits
that will protect U.S. government systems operating in the band.
Therefore, the compromise met the core U.S. objective of protecting
these systems from harmful interference by FSS operations.

Further, as part of the agreement that resolved this agenda item, a new
resolution (Resolution COM 5/15, Special Requirements of Geographically
Small or Narrow Countries Operating Earth Stations in the
Fixed-Satellite Service in the band 13.75-14.0 GHz) was adopted, calling
for continued studies on developing technical or operational methods to
permit some administrations to deploy the smaller antennas closer to
coastlines while maintaining adequate protection levels for
Radiolocation Service. Meanwhile, to head off potential country
footnotes allowing the pfd at the coastline to be exceeded, a resolution
asking for studies by the ITU-R to determine technical and operational
methods to allow small or narrow countries to use the band was
presented. A small drafting group developed the text, which was accepted
with minimal changes. This resolution was well received by several of
the small administrations present, including Tonga, Vietnam and
Thailand.

*4.5.14 High Density Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (agenda item 1.25)*

Under Agenda Item 1.25, the Conference considered regulatory provisions
and possible identification of spectrum for high-density systems in the
FSS above 17.3 GHz, focusing primarily on frequency bands above 19.7
GHz. The delegates were instructed to keep in mind global harmonization
to the greatest extent possible without constraining the development of
other services\--particularly the fixed service and Broadcasting
Satellite Service (BSS).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U.S. objective was to identify
spectrum, preferably on a worldwide basis, that could be used for the
implementation of high-density FSS (HDFSS) systems. HDFSS systems would
include large numbers of user terminals, deployed across a large
geographic area. A key component of the HDFSS concept is to avoid having
to coordinate the user terminals on an individual basis, which would be
cumbersome and time-consuming. The most straightforward way to
accomplish this would be for administrations, in their national spectrum
planning, to choose between implementing HDFSS or terrestrial Fixed
Services in any particular frequency band. This concept works much
better if neighboring countries also choose the same bands for
implementation of HDFSS systems.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: At WRC-2003, only a
limited amount of spectrum was identified on a worldwide basis for
HDFSS. The bands identified worldwide were 19.7-20.2 GHz and 40-40.5 GHz
in the space-to-Earth direction, with 28.45-28.94 GHz and 29.46-30 GHz
identified in the Earth-to-space direction. Some additional bands were
identified regionally, although Regions 1 and 2 diverged on the bands
identified. Region 3 identified very little spectrum for HDFSS beyond
what was identified on a worldwide basis. The United States was
successful in identifying all of the spectrum within Region 2 that it
had hoped to identify for HDFSS. The Delegation also was successful in
obtaining a new resolution providing guidelines for administrations to
implement HDFSS systems.

# *4.5.15 Transmission of information by ICAO systems (agenda item 1.28)* {#transmission-of-information-by-icao-systems-agenda-item-1.28 .Heading-0}

This agenda item asked the Conference to consider whether to permit the
use of the 108-117.975 MHz band for transmitting radionavigation
satellite differential correction signals by ICAO standard ground-based
systems.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U. S. objectives for this agenda item
were three-fold:

1.  To adopt regulatory provisions accommodating radionavigation
    satellite differential correction signals by ICAO standard
    ground-based systems, as well as data links for surveillance in the
    band 108-117.975 MHz;

2.  To adopt a new resolution requiring compatibility studies between
    the new systems and FM broadcast stations in the lower adjacent
    band; and

3.  To specify implementation conditions---particularly for surveillance
    systems.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: The band was allocated to
the AM(R)S by a footnote for the navigation and surveillance systems.
The AM(R)S allocation was adopted because the Radiocommunication Bureau
(BR) indicated that a service must be allocated and that the AM(R)S was
the most appropriate. The footnote adopted is as follows.

**\"**5.BA03 The band 108-117.975 MHz may also be used by the
Aeronautical Mobile (R) Service on a primary basis, limited to systems
that transmit navigational information in support of air navigation and
surveillance functions in accordance with recognized international
aviation standards. Such use shall be in accordance with
Resolution \[COM5/2\] (WRC‑03) and shall not cause harmful interference
to, nor claim protection from, stations operating in the Aeronautical
Radionavigation Service which operate in accordance with international
aeronautical standards.\"

A question was raised about the need to protect the Broadcasting Service
in the lower adjacent band. As a result, the new resolution required
compatibility studies between the new systems and FM broadcast stations
in the lower adjacent band. The resolution also called for specifying
implementation conditions, particularly for surveillance systems. These
results met U.S. objectives for this agenda item.

# *4.5.16 New MSS allocations in the 1518-1525 and 1668-1675 MHz bands (Agenda Item 1.31)* {#new-mss-allocations-in-the-1518-1525-and-1668-1675-mhz-bands-agenda-item-1.31 .Heading-0}

Agenda item 1.31 addressed additional allocations to the Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) in the 1-3 GHz band, in accordance with
Resolutions 226 (WRC-2000) and 227 (WRC-2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. Initially, the United States opposed new
MSS allocations, especially in the Americas, because of concerns about
interference to existing services in the band. Of particular concern
were the aeronautical mobile telemetry operations (used largely for
critical real-time flight testing) in the 1518-1525 MHz band and
terrestrial operations (FCC Auction 46) in the 1670-1675 MHz band.

Furthermore, the United States proposed to suppress existing allocations
(1492-1525 MHz and 1675-1710 MHz) in Region 2, due to the
incompatibility of MSS with existing services in the band.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Following intense
negotiations, the U.S. Delegation successfully reached agreement with
other administrations on a solution that allows an MSS downlink at 1518
-- 1525 MHz and an uplink at 1668 -- 1675 MHz. In return, the
allocations were made with numerous conditions to protect operations in
the United States. Applying power restrictions to the satellites when
their emissions illuminate the United States will protect aeronautical
telemetry. The satellite operators may not seek protection from
interference into their systems from fixed and mobile operations in the
United States. Thus, fixed and mobile operators in the United States
will not be burdened or constrained by MSS operations in the 1670-1675
MHz band. The approximately 15 existing main meteorological satellite
Earth stations are also protected from MSS interference. The MSS
allocations themselves will not apply in the United States. Finally, the
existing allocations in Region 2 were suppressed.

*4.5.17 FSS and FS sharing in band 37.5-42.5 (Agenda Item 1.32)*

In this agenda item, the Conference considered technical and regulatory
provisions concerning the 37.5-42.5 GHz band, in accordance with
Resolutions 128 (Rev.WRC-2000) and 84 (WRC-2000).

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: There were two major components to this
issue going into the Conference: Resolution 84 issues and Resolution 128
issues. The U.S. objective for Resolution 84 was to reach agreement on
the satellite power flux‑density (pfd) limits that would apply to
satellite services in the 37.5-42.5 GHz band. The U.S. wanted limits
that would favor the operation of terrestrial Fixed Service below 40 GHz
and FSS operation above 40 GHz. The U.S. objective for Resolution 128
was to reach agreement on out-of-band satellite services emissions that
would not be overly burdensome on the satellite industry, yet would
still provide adequate protection to radioastronomy service operations
in the adjacent band.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Resolving the Resolution
84 issues was relatively easy. The Conference adopted the current Table
21-4 pfd values and accepted the essence of the U.S.-proposed footnote
to Article 5, which urged administrations to use no more power than
necessary. However, this provision was added as a footnote to the power
limits in Table 21-4 of Article 21 rather than as a footnote to Article
5.

Reaching consensus on the Resolution 128 issues, however, was extremely
difficult. The Conference agreed to a footnote to protect radioastronomy
from adjacent-band FSS and BSS satellites. The footnote allowed NGSO
space stations to exceed the technical criteria 2 percent of the time,
but rejected such a percentage-of-time approach for GSO space stations
on a worldwide basis. Additionally, the Conference rejected any special
consultation procedure on a worldwide basis for consideration of
spectral-line protection. The United States was successful in getting
the Conference to agree to the GSO 2-percent time criteria and the
procedure for consultation for spectral line protection in the
42.5-42.77 GHz band. These provisions are contained, however, in a
resolution that applies only to Region 2.

# *4.5.18 Earth Exploration-Satellite Service(EESS) use of the 420-470 MHz band (Agenda Item 1.38)*  {#earth-exploration-satellite-serviceeess-use-of-the-420-470-mhz-band-agenda-item-1.38 .Heading-0}

This item concerned possible provision of up to 6 MHz of spectrum for
the EESS (active) in the 420-470 MHz band, in accordance with Resolution
727 (Rev.WRC-2000). Proponents of an allocation sought a secondary
allocation to support the use of space-based synthetic aperture radars
that would measure Earth surface moisture content, density of jungle
foliage, and thickness of the Antarctic ice shelf.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}. The U.S. objective was to not allow a
secondary allocation for the EESS (active) and, failing that, to
minimize undesirable affects on existing services in the band.
Recommendation ITU-R SA.1260-1 narrowed the band of interest to 432-438
MHz. Using EESS (active) sensors in this band, however, could cause
harmful interference to radiolocation and mobile systems unless
accompanied by protective measures.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Although the United States
did not achieve its goal of no allocation, the Conference reached a
compromise that should adequately protect existing services. The EESS
(active) operations will have to abide by a new footnote (No. 5.5E03),
which states that the use of this band by sensors shall be in accordance
with Recommendation ITU-R SA.1260-1. This recommendation provides strict
protective measures, predominantly through power limits and selective
use of the radars (geographic coverage). Additionally, the Space
Frequency Coordination Group (SFCG) will provide and maintain a freely
accessible website containing up-to-date, advanced operational schedule
information concerning all EESS observation campaigns in the 432 -- 438
MHz band. Moreover, the provisions of the footnote in no way abrogate
the obligations of EESS (active) systems to operate as a secondary
service.

# *4.5.19 FSS Telemetry, Tracking and Control (TT&C) requirements (Agenda Item 1.39)* {#fss-telemetry-tracking-and-control-ttc-requirements-agenda-item-1.39 .Heading-0}

The Conference examined FSS spectrum requirements in bands below 17 GHz
for telemetry, tracking, and telecommand of FSS networks operating with
service links in the frequency bands above 17 GHz.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. and CITEL proposal was to
support no change to the Radio Regulations regarding this agenda item.
Under the ITU\'s regulatory structure, FSS systems may use any FSS
allocation to perform TT&C functions. Given this flexibility, which was
acknowledged by the conclusions of CPM02-2, no new regulatory provisions
or procedures were required to meet the spectrum requirements for TT&C.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Propagation conditions and
spectrum availability are primary considerations when implementing TT&C
subsystems, which must meet high reliability criteria. Transmissions
above 17 GHz experience higher free-space and rain attenuation losses
than those below 17 GHz. CPM02-2 concluded that it might be difficult to
implement in-band TT&C for service links above 17 GHz, since these
operations are required to be reliable, and the performance of TT&C
links above 17 GHz is limited by a number of factors.

Future TT&C requirements for satellites operating above 17 GHz will put
additional constraints on the bands below 17 GHz if they do not operate
in their service link bands. The following factors may facilitate the
coordination of TT&C carriers and minimize constraints:

-   TT&C carriers occupy a small portion of the satellite bandwidth and,
    through appropriate frequency planning, they are usually
    accommodated; and

-   TT&C earth stations usually employ large antennas that reduce
    interference susceptibility and the input power requirements.

For bands below 17 GHz that are allocated to the FSS (and also those
allocated to Space Operations) and are heavily used, it may be difficult
to coordinate additional TT&C links, but many systems operating above 17
GHz plan to perform TT&C functions within their service bands, or on
multi-band platforms, which will minimize the total TT&C requirements.

# COM 6 - Appendices 30, 30A and 30B {#com-6---appendices-30-30a-and-30b .Heading-0}

#  {#section-33 .Heading-0}

The chairperson of Committee 6 (COM6) was Mr. K. Arasteh (Iran). The
vice-chairpersons were Mr. S. Djematene (Algeria) and Mr. J.C. Albernaz
(Brazil). The U.S. spokesperson was Mr. Rockie Patterson.

1.  *Modifications to articles and annexes of Appendices 30 and 30A
    (Agenda Item 1.27)*

The purpose of this agenda item was to review, in accordance with
Resolutions 540 (WRC-2000) and 735 (WRC-2000), the ITU-R studies
requested in those Resolutions. Furthermore, the Conference was to
modify, as appropriate, the relevant regulatory procedures and
associated sharing criteria contained in Appendices 30 and 30A and in
the associated provisions.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: Agenda item 1.27 encompassed several
proposed modifications to the articles and annexes of Appendices 30 and
30A, which provide the provisions associated with BSS. The United States
had significant interest in several of the issues. A primary concern was
the minimum antenna size to be considered in modifications to the
sharing criteria in the appendices. Since the United States has 20
million receive antennas of 45 cm in diameter, it was a high priority to
ensure their continued protection and use.

The second issue of interest was the decision on Sections 4.1.18-4.1.20
of the appendices. These provisions, which were adopted at WRC-2000,
permitted assignments or modifications to the Regions 1 and 3 BSS Plans
to be implemented without completing coordination, in a manner similar
to Nos. 11.41-11.42 of the Radio Regulations. This was a very
contentious issue between countries in Regions 1 and 3. Although the
provisions were not applicable to Region 2 prior to the Conference, the
United States was concerned because one proposal submitted to the
Conference called for applying similar provisions globally.

A third concern for the United States was the possible elimination of
the concept of \"grouping,\" which allows an administration to file a
group of different BSS system designs but leave until a later date any
determination of which one will be implemented. In the meantime, other
administrations that file for systems must protect all the system
designs in the entire group.

The agenda item also included several less-controversial matters such as
updating technical criteria to keep the regulations current with modern
satellite system design.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: With regard to the minimum
size of receive antennas to be protected, the United States ensured
protection of 45-cm antennas in Region 2 by emphasizing the following
points:

-   In Region 2 BSS, 45-cm antennas have been universally used in
    implemented systems. These systems have been successfully
    coordinated with other Region 2 BSS systems, and entered into the
    Region 2 Plan. Further, these systems have not required coordination
    with FSS or BSS in other regions.

-   Region 2 BSS is unique in that it is the only service that is
    constrained by restrictions on the eastern- and western-most orbital
    positions that may be used to provide Region 2 BSS (in Annex 7),
    across the entire Region 2 BSS allocation.

-   There is a large geographic separation between Region 2 and Region
    1, and between Region 2 and Region 3, resulting in increased
    satellite antenna off-axis discrimination into Region 2 from a
    satellite serving Regions 1 or 3.

-   Taken together, the constraints in the two previous bullets minimize
    any potential impact that protection of Region 2 BSS to a smaller
    minimum diameter could have on the satellite services in the other
    Regions.

The U.S. proposal on Sections 4.1.18-4.1.20 would have permitted the use
of these types of provisions for all regional BSS systems with respect
to all other radio services and would have prohibited their use within
the BSS Plans. The regulations approved by the Conference reflected the
U.S. proposal, with two additions applying to Regions 1 and 3 only. One
provision specified that systems being implemented in accordance with
the Regions 1 and 3 BSS List\--which are modifications to the Plan
assignments\--cannot use the provisions with respect to the Regions 1
and 3 Plan assignments. The other modification to the regulations not
proposed by the U.S. Delegation is the limitation on the number of
proposed networks that can be grouped in Regions 1 and 3. Region 2 has
its own BSS grouping concept that is suitable and is not affected by
these changes.

WRC-2003 also approved regulations for Bringing Into Use (BIU) date
extensions under very limited circumstances. A three-year BIU extension
may be granted to an administration if a launch failure results in the
destruction of the satellite. The United States modified its initial
strict position against BIU date extensions in the spirit of compromise,
and U.S. delegates were actively involved in drafting the text to ensure
that the extension process cannot be abused. After negotiations between
Laos, China and South Korea provided an acceptable compromise, an
extension for a minimized Laotian BSS system was approved by the Plenary
without U.S. comment. It should be noted that several U.S. companies
have an interest in the implementation of this system.

1.  *Report of the director of the Radiocommunication Bureau (Agenda
    item 1.35)*

This agenda item considered the report of the Director of the
Radiocommunication Bureau (BR) on the results of the analysis, in
accordance with Resolution 53 (Rev.WRC-2000) and any appropriate action
required pursuant to that report. Resolution 53 of WRC-2000 had directed
the BR to carry out compatibility studies between the Regions 1 and 3
BSS Plan adopted by WRC-2000 and other services having primary
allocations in the Plan bands. The results were to be considered by
WRC-2003.

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: The U.S. goal on this agenda item was to
ensure the adequate protection of existing and proposed U.S. satellite
networks that might be affected by the WRC-2000 revision of the Regions
1 and 3 BSS Plan.

Prior to the Conference, some administrations believed that networks
processed under the Rules of Procedure, suspending examinations under
No. 9.35 of the Radio Regulations, should not be taken into account in
the compatibility study. But in its re-planning, WRC-2000 fully
recognized the need to preserve the integrity of other services sharing
the planned bands. In adopting Resolution 53, WRC-2000 clearly specified
those FSS networks involved, irrespective of the manner in which they
were going to be processed under Article 9 of the Radio Regulations.
Moreover, it would be unprecedented and unfair not to take into account
FSS networks, as suggested by some administrations, just because these
administrations were discontented with this Rule of Procedure, which was
adopted by the Radio Regulations Board. The United States believed that
WRC-2003 should not penalize administrations whose FSS networks were
processed under this Rule of Procedure, as these administrations were
not responsible for its adoption.

The CITEL proposal emphasized the importance of all FSS networks
specified in Resolution 53 continuing to be fully taken into account at
WRC-2003 under agenda item 1.35, for the purpose of updating the
"Remarks\" columns in the tables of Article 9A of Appendix 30A and
Article 11 of Appendix 30. This included those processed under the Rules
of Procedures on No. 9.35 of the Radio Regulations.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: As part of the
compatibility with other services of the Regions 1 and 3 Plan adopted at
WRC-2000, the BR performed an analysis to determine affected and
affecting services. WRC-2003 adopted, without controversy, new tables in
Article 9A of Appendix 30A and Article 11 of Appendix 30 of the Radio
Regulations that specify affected or affecting networks/beams of
administrations in the \"remarks column,\" based on the results of these
studies. Additionally, since WRC-2003 adopted new sharing criteria in
Appendices 30 and 30A, a resolution was adopted calling for the BR to
perform additional analysis using the new criteria. The results are to
be reported to the next WRC in the Director's Report.

#  {#section-34 .Heading-0}

# COM 7 -- Miscellaneous Agenda Items and Future Agendas {#com-7-miscellaneous-agenda-items-and-future-agendas .Heading-0}

Committee 7 was chaired by Mr. Albert Nalbandian of Armenia. The
vice-chairmen were Mr. Kyu-Jin Wee of South Korea and Mr. Reynaldo Cesar
Gonzalez Bustamante of Mexico. Mr. Dusan Schuster of the BR was the
secretary. The U.S. committee representative was Frank Williams of the
Department of State. Larry Reed (FCC) acted as the lead spokesperson on
Agenda Items 2 and 4. Karl Nebbia (NTIA) acted as the lead spokesperson
on Agenda Item 7.2.

*4.7.1* *Terrestrial Wireless Interactive Multimedia (TWIM) services
(Agenda Item 1.21)*

The delegates examined whether changes in the Radio Regulations were
required to accommodate TWIM services.

[U. S. Objectives:]{.underline} The United States took the position that
the ITU-R had concluded that no regulatory steps were needed to
accommodate the possible merger of radio technologies for the
Broadcasting, Fixed and Mobile Services. This concept found little
support over the three years leading to the Conference.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: With support of CEPT,
Sweden tried to stir up interest in the subject. Since the proponents
had difficulty in clarifying the definition of this agenda item, most
delegations developed no interest in discussing global harmonization of
something that they could not understand. Given the results of the ITU-R
studies and the lack of any significant progress, the effort turned
primarily toward placing this issue on the next agenda. Ultimately, U.S.
efforts and a general lack of interest from the ITU members moved this
item to the WRC-10 agenda.

*4.7.2 IMT-2000 and systems beyond IMT-2000 (Agenda Item 1.22)*

The BR had been studying potential requirements for future development
of IMT-2000 and further-generation services. Results of these studies
could determine what requirements will be reviewed at WRC-07.

[U. S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States had concluded that no
action should be taken on this item at WRC-03 except to agree to an
agenda item for the next conference.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Little discussion occurred
on this item, as delegations in essentially all of the regional groups
agreed to place it on agenda for the next conference.

*4.7.3 Review and update ITU-R recommendations incorporated by reference
in the Radio Regulations (Agenda Item 2)*

This agenda item called for reviewing the results of the
Radiocommunication Assembly, pursuant to Resolution 28, and deciding
whether to update references in the Radio Regulations, pursuant to
Resolution 27.

# [U. S. Objectives]{.underline}: The United States sought to ensure that recommendation texts cited as mandatory provisions of the Radio Regulations were updated appropriately and that changes were not made to the Radio Regulations, which might make references mandatory that had not been mandatory before. 

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: COM 7 revised Resolutions
27 (Rev.WRC-03) and 28 (Rev.WRC-03)---the resolutions that set out the
principles of incorporation by reference---through a very difficult and
confusing interaction that involved a host of countries.

Countries that do not participate in the ITU-R remain very apprehensive
about recommendations that, by including references to the Radio
Regulations, give these recommendations mandatory force. They also
remain concerned that, because they do not participate in the study
groups, they do not see the text of the specific recommendations well in
advance of the WRC. Incorporation by reference, a concept intended to
simplify the updating of the regulations and to decrease the size of the
Radio Regulations, has actually led to the creation of a separate volume
of the Radio Regulations providing the text of the recommendations
incorporated by reference, defeating part of the benefit of the concept.

The inability of many delegates to understand the terminology of
incorporations by reference made the Conference dialogue particularly
difficult. WRC-2000 had taken great pains to make clear that only
specific text within recommendations is incorporated by reference---not
the entire recommendations. Furthermore, each mandatory cite should
follow an agreed pattern, in order to clarify which cites are mandatory
(incorporated by reference) and which are not mandatory. Country
representatives often referred to non-mandatory references to
recommendations as "incorporated by reference." By definition, however,
non-mandatory texts are not incorporated by reference. These problems
with definitions led to circular arguments and a great deal of dialogue
on this agenda item. Ultimately, Resolutions 27 and 28 were revised by
WRC-03 to clarify and minimize the use of incorporations by reference of
ITU-R recommendations in the Radio Regulations.

Meanwhile, the BR put forward a document to clarify which of the Radio
Regulation cites that had been agreed at previous conferences---but not
following the agreed citation pattern---were thought to be mandatory and
which were not. This threatened to open the door to reconsideration of
past conference results. Given the difficult negotiations that led to
these past agreements, few delegates wanted to reopen debate regarding
specific citations. A proposal by India to reincorporate into Volume 4
the Recommendation ITU-R RA.769-1 was not accepted. COM 4 changed the
Recommendation M.1170 reference to non-mandatory and indicated it should
be removed from Volume 4. WRC-03 made no significant changes, however,
to the references in the Radio Regulations.

*4.7.4 Review of Resolutions and Recommendations (Agenda Item 4)*

This agenda item involved a review of 74 resolutions and 35
recommendations approved at past WRCs.

[U. S. Objectives]{.underline}. The United States sought to update
resolutions and recommendations where appropriate, and to abrogate
resolutions and recommendations where they no longer served any purpose.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: Past conferences created
this agenda item to allow the abrogation of old resolutions and
recommendations and to allow the update of resolutions and
recommendations as components became outdated. However, because many
parts of the Radio Regulations cite conference resolutions and
recommendations, this review always holds the potential for
renegotiating old agreements. Based on the specific topics of each
resolution and recommendation, Committee 7 assigned the resolutions and
recommendations of previous conferences to Committees 4, 5 and 6.

The final status of these resolutions and recommendations may be found
in Document 378. WRC-03 made minimal revisions. The most prominent
abrogation was Resolution 46, which provided the coordination mechanism
for non-geostationary MSS systems. This was brought up by ITU-R staff at
the final working Plenary, even though none of the committees had
recommended abrogation.

Oddly, under this agenda item, the Conference wrote a new resolution on
ultra-wideband (UWB) devices. This resolution, put forward by Syria,
appeared to be based on the misunderstanding that the International
Special Committee on Radio Interference (CISPR) had begun working on UWB
issues. Delegates believed that UWB should remain the purview of the
ITU. Even though direct contact with CISPR representatives during the
Conference revealed that CISPR was not dealing with UWB, delegations
appeared anxious to end debate on the subject, and they accepted the
resolution.

*4.7.5 Review of the Radiocommunication Assembly (Agenda Item 5)*

This agenda item involved reviewing the results of the RA, which took
place prior to the Conference.

[U. S. Objectives]{.underline}. The United States did not view this
agenda item as an action item and therefore did not have any detailed
objectives.

[Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: COM 7 simply noted the
Radiocommunication Assembly report.

*4.7.6 Identification of items requiring urgent action by the
radiocommunication study groups in preparation for the next World
Radiocommunication Conference (Agenda Item 6)*

This item was designed to line up issues for urgent study at the next
WRC.

[U. S. Objectives]{.underline}. The United States did not identify any
items requiring urgent study.

# [Activities and Accomplishments]{.underline}: This item did not receive much attention within the Committee. The Arab Group indicated, however, its belief that this item is still needed. It submitted Document 313 to the Plenary, which contained a short list of items that the Arab Group believed needed critical study. That list included:

# Consideration of the technical parameters for the possible planning of BSS in the 21.4-22 GHz band in Regions 1 and 3;

# Technical aspects of use of terrestrial optical telecommunications in the bands above 3000 GHz;

# Definition of High-Density Fixed Satellite Service (HDFSS); and

# Definition of Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO).

# After a brief discussion, during which the French delegation sought to remove the item concerning bands above 3000 GHz, the document was amended and approved.

*4.7.7 Future conference agendas (Agenda Item 7.2)*

This agenda item featured discussions of proposals to add items to the
agenda of the next WRC, which is tentatively planned for 2007
(WRC-2007), as well as the following conference, tentatively planned for
2010 (WRC-2010).[^4]

[U.S. Objectives]{.underline}: In light of the ITU's budgetary
difficulties, and the growing and complicated agendas of the past two
WRCs, the United States sought at this Conference only a limited number
of new items for the next WRC. The Delegation worked to keep the agenda
focused on clear subjects, on items that were likely to be completed by
the next WRC, and on items that would lead to regulatory changes. In
accordance with this approach, the United States proposed items related
to \"IMT-2000 and systems beyond,\" spectrum for wideband aeronautical
telemetry, an upgrade of the Radiolocation Service allocations near 9
GHz, and spectrum for new aeronautical operations near 5 GHz. These
items were successfully incorporated in the agenda for the next WRC.

[Activities and Achievements]{.underline}: The discussion of future
agendas began with a debate over the type of subjects that should be
placed on an agenda. The United Kingdom placed before the Conference
proposed principles for identifying agenda items. This proposal followed
almost exactly the U.S. proposal to the ITU Plenipotentiary and the ITU
Council. With the delegates facing some 50 to 60 prospective new agenda
items, this proposed resolution took front stage. While the ensuing
debate whittled the resulting resolution down to a set of toothless
guidelines, it set the stage for consideration of the individual
proposed agenda items to be considered for WRC-07 and WRC-10.

There was some consensus, through debate over the resolution, that items
would make it onto a future agenda if they addressed issues of a
worldwide or regional character; if they were intended to lead to
changes in the Radio Regulations; if required studies could be completed
(e.g. that appropriate ITU‑R Recommendations were approved) prior to
that conference; and if resources to support the agenda item were
manageable. Furthermore, the resolution discouraged rolling agenda items
over from one Conference to the next. It also established a format for
the submission of proposals for future agenda items. This format
requires an indication of priority and an assessment of financial and
other resource implications of each potential agenda item. The
resolution also sought to ensure that the objectives and scope of
proposed agenda items were complete and unambiguous. These guidelines
created an atmosphere that enabled the Conference to take a rational
look at each item that administrations proposed for the future agendas.

To deal with the large number of items, the COM 7 chairman divided them
into five groups and set up ad hoc groups to cover each one. To select
possible items for inclusion in the WRC-07 and WRC-10 agendas, five ad
hoc groups were established and wide consultations were carried out. Mr.
Karl Nebbia (United States) led the ad hoc group for science services.
Mr. Chris Van Depenbeek (Netherlands) led the group on terrestrial
services. Mr. Alan Ashman (Australia) led the group on
High-Frequency/Medium-Frequency Amateur and Maritime services. Ad hoc
groups were also created for FSS issues and for a collection of issues
not related to any specific service. These ad hoc groups evaluated the
proposed agenda items according to four categories:

-   Category A --- high priority for WRC-07,

-   Category B --- low priority for WRC-07,

-   Category C --- WRC-10 agenda items, and

-   Category D --- not recommended for either Conference.

In accordance with U.S. objectives, negotiations led to a much smaller
WRC-07 agenda that contained only 21 items, many of which appear fairly
simple to resolve. This represented a significant reduction in agenda
items from WRC-03. The determination of the delegates to bring to
closure issues that had lingered, unresolved, through multiple WRCs
helped make the limited future agenda possible. With respect to WRC-07,
one of the most difficult items proved to be the study of potential
spectrum requirements for global broadband spectrum, which would then be
used to identify harmonized bands for Internet applications. Having
dealt with an item for high-density fixed-satellite at WRC-03, many
delegations had a difficult time supporting this item. However, given
that it was the sole item being presented by a developing country
(Morocco), the item was accepted.

Some items that stood little chance of completion by WRC-2007 were
placed on the preliminary agenda for WRC-2010. For example, the United
States was successful in moving allocations above 275 GHz to WRC-10,
even though most regions supported addressing it at WRC-07. The TWIM
issue was also pushed to WRC-10. Given the difficulties at the
Conference regarding protecting passive services from unwanted
emissions, a European proposal for WRC-10 regarding the next generation
of radio astronomy drew a significant debate and ultimately was removed
from the preliminary agenda for that Conference.

One item from Canada, dealing with identification of spectrum for
"intelligent highway" systems, received criticism because it did not
clearly point to a Radio Regulation. This touched on an ongoing debate
regarding whether or not the Radio Regulations should be used for
non-mandatory band identifications. Canada withdrew the item after
another administration sought to change the band under consideration.

Other items involving reporting on studies to future WRCs (i.e. ones
where objectives can probably be met without WRC action) were kept off
the WRC agenda by setting up a mechanism to report through the director
of the BR. These issues included a review of the spectrum regulatory
framework to ensure that it can deal with new technologies, spectrum
requirements for electronic news-gathering, and equitable access to
satellite orbits. The proposal to review the regulatory framework had
been led by New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Given the current
activity in the United States to review or reform spectrum management,
the United States supported this discussion but sought successfully to
keep it off the WRC-07 agenda.

The results of WRC-2003 in setting the agendas for future WRCs fully met
U.S. objectives.

#  {#section-35 .Heading-0}

# 4.8. U.S. Reservations to the Final Acts of WRC-2003 {#u.s.-reservations-to-the-final-acts-of-wrc-2003 .Heading-0}

The U.S. Delegation found the outcome of all of the Conference agenda
items to be acceptable and, therefore, had no need to enter a
reservation to the Final Acts of the Conference. Consistent with U.S.
practices at ITU treaty-making conferences, the Delegation reserved the
right of the United States to make additional specific reservations at
the time of deposit of the U.S. instrument of acceptance of the Radio
Regulations revisions. In addition, the Delegation stated that the
United States could only be considered bound by instruments adopted by
an ITU Conference once it officially notified the ITU of its consent to
be bound. Finally, the United States reiterated and incorporated by
reference all declarations and reservations made by the United States at
prior radiocommunication conferences.

# 4.9 Political Issues {#political-issues-1 .Heading-0}

#  {#section-36 .Heading-0}

This Conference was as free of overt political issues as any conference
has been in many years. For example, there were no Israeli/Palestinian
issues for the first time since the early 1990s.

From time to time, Cuba has chosen to raise a U.S./Cuba bilateral
communication issue, usually a broadcasting matter, at the close of one
of the Plenary sessions. At this Conference, Cuba decided at the close
of the initial Plenary session to object to a U.S. television
transmission to Cuba on channel 13 from an "Air Force C-130 military
aircraft." Rather than responding to Cuba in a Plenary session, the U.S.
Delegation chose to ignore the statement and to reference it in its
declaration in the Final Acts of the Conference. Both the United States
and Cuba entered their usual declarations, with the United States
recalling its right to broadcast to Cuba on appropriate frequencies,
free from jamming and other wrongful interference.

# 5.0 FACTORS IN MEETING U.S. OBJECTIVES {#factors-in-meeting-u.s.-objectives .Heading-0}

#  {#section-37 .Heading-0}

# This section highlights several of the factors and programs incorporated into the WRC-2003 effort that enabled the Delegation to meet its objectives at the Conference. First and foremost, the Delegation developed and executed its strategy in a highly disciplined fashion. Work was characterized by very thorough preparation, from both substantive and delegation management and training perspectives. Another critical factor was an active outreach program, both before and during the Conference, that proved to be integral to the Delegation\'s ability to work with other delegations. In addition to building strong relationships, outreach efforts involved presenting U.S. viewpoints through an array of presentations and displays. Several of these featured the U.S. space program and others featured outdoor applications of Wi-Fi. Also worth underscoring was strong commitment to a regional presence through CITEL.  {#this-section-highlights-several-of-the-factors-and-programs-incorporated-into-the-wrc-2003-effort-that-enabled-the-delegation-to-meet-its-objectives-at-the-conference.-first-and-foremost-the-delegation-developed-and-executed-its-strategy-in-a-highly-disciplined-fashion.-work-was-characterized-by-very-thorough-preparation-from-both-substantive-and-delegation-management-and-training-perspectives.-another-critical-factor-was-an-active-outreach-program-both-before-and-during-the-conference-that-proved-to-be-integral-to-the-delegations-ability-to-work-with-other-delegations.-in-addition-to-building-strong-relationships-outreach-efforts-involved-presenting-u.s.-viewpoints-through-an-array-of-presentations-and-displays.-several-of-these-featured-the-u.s.-space-program-and-others-featured-outdoor-applications-of-wi-fi.-also-worth-underscoring-was-strong-commitment-to-a-regional-presence-through-citel. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-38 .Heading-0}

**5.1 Disciplined Strategy Development and Delegation Management**

WRCs are among the largest multilateral treaty conferences periodically
scheduled within the United Nations system. They function as the
culmination of multi-year preparatory, "study" cycles, when spectrum
allocation and management issues are thoroughly examined. A number of
United States government Departments and agencies participate actively
in this process, as do many private sector company representatives. The
task of coordinating this effort resides within the United States
Department of State, Bureau of Economic and Business
Affairs/International Communications and Information Policy.

One noteworthy reason for the United States success at WRC 2003 was the
commitment on the part of the most directly involved agency principals
to conclude substantive preparation on a fast track. This timetable
held, for the most part. As a result, the United States was able to
bring a thorough set of final United States proposals to the concluding
CITEL meeting, hosted by the United States. We strengthened our
substantive presence within our region and CITEL, in turn, was a much
stronger player at WRC-2003.

Successful conclusion of multilateral negotiations as complex as these
required disciplined delegation management, strategy development and
execution. The United States Delegation had a well defined structure, as
reflected by Appendices A, B, D, and G. Its positions in Geneva were the
product of complex processes, executed by the FCC and federal government
agencies and supported by the United States Congress. This document
describes those processes. Two aspects of the disciplined work, not
noted elsewhere in the document, are described briefly here, the
building of strong communication lines to the Washington and WRC-03
Training Day.

*5.1.1 Delegation's Commitment to Open Communications*

[Ambassador Obuchowski and the delegation leadership committed to the
White House, the Secretary of State, FCC Chairman Powell, leadership of
all involved federal agencies, and to the Congress, that they would
avoid surprises during the course of the Conference. During complex,
high stakes negotiations, inevitably a delegation must change course or
make compromises. This Delegation worked very hard, and successfully, to
develop thorough position papers prior to departure. Offers were made to
brief all involved agencies and Congressional representatives. The White
House graciously organized a briefing for all interested agencies by
Ambassador Obuchowski and delegation leadership prior to departure.
Ambassador Obuchowski hosted a final Principals' meeting at the
Department of State on May 16, 2003. And, the Delegation briefed its
"home team" during the conference on a routine schedule. The commitment
to both delegation discipline and communication with Washington yielded
the desired result: no surprises.]{.underline}

*5.1.2 WRC-03 Delegation Training Day*

The U.S. Delegation conducted the first ever Delegation Training Day on
May 14, 2003. The Delegation training initiative was created by
Ambassador Obuchowski and executed by Darlene Drazenovich of NTIA.
Training Day was intended to bring all U.S. delegates, many of whom are
new to WRCs and some who are very knowledgeable, up to a common
threshold of experience. It also was a "team building" exercise. More
than 100 U.S. WRC-03 delegates, along with senior government agency
officials, participated in this training. The Ambassador gave delegates
read-ahead material, and NTIA provided all delegates with copies of "How
to be a Delegate," a pamphlet authored by Ambassador John McDonald.
Ambassador McDonald was a guest speaker at Training Day, sharing his
experiences from international conference diplomacy.

The morning session consisted of three panels. The first focused on
rules of procedure for conduct of WRCs. James R. Carroll, a member of
the ITU Radio Regulations Board, Audrey Allison of Boeing and Robin
Frank of the Department of Defense led the panel discussions on rules
for debate and voting in Plenary sessions. Mr. Karl Nebbia of NTIA and
Don Jansky of Jansky-Barmat Telecom led the second panel, on microphone
etiquette. The panel focused on spokespersons' and delegates'
responsibilities, proper microphone use, and negotiation strategy. The
third panel, which focused on behavior, customs and courtesies, was led
by Mindel De La Torre of Telecom Management Group, Inc., and John Giusti
of the FCC. This panel offered recommendations on appropriate behavior,
attention to cultural sensitivities, relations with the press,
conceptual vocabulary and body language for delegates.The afternoon
session consisted of a spokespersons' briefing on the highlights of the
U.S. proposals toWRC-03. A security briefing by Scott Rutherford of DoD
culminated the day.

WRC Training Day was successful in helping the Delegation to prepare for
events in Geneva and to adopt the proper tone and demeanor for
multilateral diplomacy. The event should be repeated by future WRC
Delegations and possibly other State Department-supported conference
delegations, as well.

# 5.2 The U.S. Country Outreach Program {#the-u.s.-country-outreach-program .Heading-0}

#  {#section-39 .Heading-0}

Building open lines of communication and goodwill with other
administrations is crucial in an organization such as the ITU, which
employs the United Nations voting system of \"one country, one vote.\"
This system requires the United States to actively engage all of the
other delegations. Like other countries, large and small, the United
States has only one vote on any given issue. But unlike many other
countries, its commercial and/or government interests are at stake in
virtually all of the WRC agenda items. It then becomes imperative for
the U.S. Delegation to employ its numerical and intellectual strengths
by engaging all of the other delegates, across all agenda items. This
can be a large organizational task, and it relies upon the dedication of
each Delegation member to maximize his or her country outreach
assignment. The positive effects on U.S. efforts may be incalculable.

This section of the report will recount the pre-Conference and
Conference country outreach activities in detail. It then concludes with
recommendations for fine-tuning the program.

*5.2.1 Pre-Conference Outreach Activities*

The U.S. Delegation's international outreach efforts began immediately
after the Ambassador's appointment as Head of Delegation in February
2003 and continued through to the last day of the Conference. Ambassador
Obuchowski's interest in, and support of, the Country Outreach Program
was critical in establishing the importance of the Program within the
Delegation and was, in fact, instrumental in the Program\'s success.

A pre-Delegation group of inter-agency participants accompanied
Ambassador Obuchowski on a seven-trip, 15-country, four-month
pre-Conference bilateral and multilateral meeting schedule. The group
met with foreign administrations at regional meetings and in-country. It
was an aggressive and challenging schedule, but it proved to be
invaluable for learning about the proposals and positions of other
regions and countries in advance of the Conference. It served as the
foundation of the Country Outreach Program.

By the end of the pre-Conference meeting schedule, Ambassador Obuchowski
and the inter-agency group had been able to discuss U.S. and CITEL
proposals with key WRC participants around the world. These trips
allowed the participants to gauge the amount of support that the U.S.
Delegation could expect for these U.S.-supported proposals. Moreover, it
allowed the Delegation\'s leadership to explore and understand the
reasons behind other administrations\' proposals. This, in turn, allowed
for the development of possible compromises that could be negotiated at
the Conference.

At the same time, in Washington, D.C., the Delegation began meeting on a
weekly basis shortly after the Ambassador's appointment. The
preparations for the Country Outreach Program began immediately once the
Delegation was formed. The outreach coordinator began collecting
information from the U.S. delegates at each meeting, seeking information
on each delegate's language skills, availability to serve as a country
liaison during the Conference, and personal preferences for country
assignments. Many delegates had cultural, linguistic and familial ties
to foreign countries to which they were assigned. This served them and
the Delegation extremely well. Delegates were also provided with
instructions on what was expected of country liaisons in advance of the
Conference.

Delegates were also asked if they wanted to serve as one of eight
regional coordinators for outreach. The eight regions were the Americas,
the Caribbean, the Middle East and North Africa, Western Europe, Central
and Eastern Europe, Anglophone Africa, Francophone Africa, and the
Asia-Pacific region. The regional coordinator and country liaison
assignments were completed approximately a week and a half before the
Delegation departed for the Conference. This allowed the regional
coordinators to make contact with their country liaison officers on the
Delegation. It also allowed the country liaisons to attempt to make
contact with their assigned countries\' delegates prior to arriving in
Geneva.

*5.2.2 Outreach Activities at the Conference*

The U.S. Delegation's country outreach work in Geneva began immediately
once the Conference started. Country liaisons were encouraged to make
contact with their assigned foreign delegations as soon as possible (if
they had not done so prior to the Conference) and to report back to
their regional coordinators on whether their assigned country was in
attendance. This activity gave country liaisons a clear assignment and
deadline for reporting on their assigned foreign delegations, yielding
an immediate activation of the program on-site. This assignment also
gave Ambassador Obuchowski and the regional coordinators valuable
information about who was actually in attendance at the Conference.
Finally, it allowed for quick adjustments and appropriate reassignment
of country liaisons to reflect the realities of attendance at the
Conference.

Meetings between U.S. dignitaries (including Administration officials,
Congressional representatives and FCC Commissioners) and their foreign
counterparts began the first day and continued through the third week of
the Conference. In addition, the U.S. Delegation---with the sponsorship
and organizational support of the private sector Delegation
members---hosted the only Conference reception to which virtually all of
the WRC-2003 delegates were invited. This gesture made a positive and
desirable impression upon delegates from around the world, many of whom
were not always invited to other countries\' receptions. In addition,
NASA, NOAA, and DoD hosted several more focused receptions for foreign
delegates. These events were considered goodwill-building successes,
especially since the United States was one of the only countries to
sponsor social events for delegates to meet each other outside of the
formal Conference setting.

Separately, Ambassador Obuchowski hosted many lunches and dinners and
five major regional receptions/dinners as head of the U.S. Delegation.
Each of these events had to be coordinated with the Ambassador's busy
and often changing schedule. These events also required significant
logistical preparation. There were also many *ad hoc* bilateral meetings
between the Ambassador and the heads of foreign delegations.

Once a particular country or region was identified as an invitee to an
event, the outreach team set up the facility and worked with the
relevant regional coordinators and country liaisons to extend
invitations. These were distributed well in advance of the event,
allowing foreign administrations to RSVP to the invitation and avoid
scheduling conflicts. The outreach team then collected RSVPs, determined
who the appropriate U.S. Delegation attendees should be, arranged for
gifts for the foreign invitees, and, in many cases, arranged for
transportation to and from the event\--all with an eye to keeping costs
low and minimizing time away from the Conference. The process also
required checking to ensure that invitations not be extended to
countries with which social contacts are not allowed by the Department
of State.

In order to facilitate the flow of information between Ambassador
Obuchowski and the Delegation---and to keep her successfully updated
amid the flux of events at the Conference---the core staff prepared a
briefing book and new schedule for the Ambassador each day. This allowed
the Ambassador to know what was coming up, to review background
materials and talking points, and to have as much information as
possible in order to be prepared for meetings and events the following
day. At the end of the Conference, the briefing book served as a method
for getting briefing materials and talking points to the Ambassador
ahead of issues that were raised on the Conference floor during Plenary
sessions.

Each weekend of the Conference, the Ambassador held a meeting with the
vice-chairpersons of the Delegation, the country outreach team, and the
regional coordinators. These meetings were very informative and allowed
the leadership to take stock of developments and negotiations, develop
strategies, and coordinate contacts with key members of other
delegations. The core staff and Ambassador Obuchowski were also able to
strategically combine outreach event planning and substantive Conference
objectives.

The U.S. Delegation's WRC-03 country outreach program served to open
channels of communications with the foreign delegations in attendance,
created significant goodwill between the U.S. Delegation and others, and
proved valuable at the end of the Conference, when the United States
found it necessary to lobby for support on particular agenda items. As
had been the case at past Conferences, the value of the program was a
direct result of the energy and enthusiasm of the participants. The U.S.
Delegation to WRC-2003 was fortunate to have regional coordinators and
country liaisons that demonstrated both of these qualities.

One area for possible improvement is the geographical organization of
the regions. The regional groupings have taken on a new importance at
WRCs. Chairmen of the Conferences increasingly look for opportunities to
make progress toward consensus by encouraging action or compromise at
the regional level, rather than country-by-country. This aspect of the
Conference organization is also important for the U.S. Delegation's
outreach program, which should be organized along the lines of the
regional organizations that have become major players at WRCs.

Therefore, in the future it may be better to combine the Caribbean
region with the Americas in the outreach program, as very few Caribbean
countries usually attend the Conference. In addition, the Asia-Pacific
region contains more than 30 countries, many of which tend to be
strategically important to the United States. This region is probably
too large for a single regional coordinator to oversee. It may
advisable, then, to appoint co-regional coordinators for this region, or
to consider dividing it into two or three sub-regions. Another
development that is worth considering is the emergence of the
Commonwealth Telecommunications Organization, led by the United Kingdom
and composed of members of the British Commonwealth. This organization
met prior to the Conference and maintained its presence throughout the
Conference, representing a broad cross-section of membership across all
continents.

# The lack of politicization of the Conference also helped ensure the success of the Country Outreach Program, and vice versa. The Delegation had prepared to confront political issues, particularly as the WRC came at a time of significant international events. But the discussions, for the most part, remained focused and technical. The United States is, however, seen as a global leader in any negotiation of this kind. Consequently, other countries seek our involvement in their issues and expect us to be fully prepared to provide leadership in solving problems and developing compromises. The U.S. Delegation showed respect for the views of other governments and listened closely to their needs. In addition, it actively sought the opinions of other countries and incorporated them into solutions to problems. The Delegation\'s sincere outreach efforts, particularly to the developing countries, made a positive impression on other government representatives at the WRC and contributed significantly to the ultimate success for the United States.  {#the-lack-of-politicization-of-the-conference-also-helped-ensure-the-success-of-the-country-outreach-program-and-vice-versa.-the-delegation-had-prepared-to-confront-political-issues-particularly-as-the-wrc-came-at-a-time-of-significant-international-events.-but-the-discussions-for-the-most-part-remained-focused-and-technical.-the-united-states-is-however-seen-as-a-global-leader-in-any-negotiation-of-this-kind.-consequently-other-countries-seek-our-involvement-in-their-issues-and-expect-us-to-be-fully-prepared-to-provide-leadership-in-solving-problems-and-developing-compromises.-the-u.s.-delegation-showed-respect-for-the-views-of-other-governments-and-listened-closely-to-their-needs.-in-addition-it-actively-sought-the-opinions-of-other-countries-and-incorporated-them-into-solutions-to-problems.-the-delegations-sincere-outreach-efforts-particularly-to-the-developing-countries-made-a-positive-impression-on-other-government-representatives-at-the-wrc-and-contributed-significantly-to-the-ultimate-success-for-the-united-states. .Heading-0}

# 5.3 U.S.-Sponsored Information Booths {#u.s.-sponsored-information-booths .Heading-0}

*5.3.1* *The NASA Booth*

One information booth, sponsored by NASA, conveyed to WRC-2003 Delegates
information on various aspects of the space science services. Three
different thematic areas were featured in the first three weeks of the
Conference. Week one was devoted to deep-space research activities and
coincided with the launch of the first Mars Exploration Rover mission.
An enthusiastic reaction met the announcement of the successful launch
of this mission during committee meetings of the WRC.

During the second week, the theme was human space flight. This coincided
with the NASA-hosted reception featuring two veteran astronauts, Mr.
William Readdy and Capt. Michael Lopez-Algeria. Mr. Readdy now serves as
NASA's Associate Administrator in the Office of Space Flight. He was
available to discuss the broad range of U.S.-manned space activities.
The booth featured a NASA space suit, which served as a photo prop for
many delegates. Extensive information was available at the booth about
the International Space Station and the science being conducted on
board.

The third week provided a look at NASA's Earth science mission
activities related to active and passive Earth remote sensing. Delegates
were afforded an opportunity to receive printed copies of their
hometowns, mapped from a Landsat imagery database. A computer display
was used in conjunction with a laptop to find, display and print the
color maps, for any delegate visiting the booth.  This system proved
popular among the international delegates. 

The space sciences booth was highly successful in promoting the benefits
of the space science services. The intent going into WRC-2003 was to use
this booth as a mechanism to educate all delegates regarding these
benefits in general. It was not intended as a direct tool for advocating
specific agenda items at the Conference. Using this booth, NASA fully
achieved its objective of raising the profile of space science benefits,
while perhaps aiding an underlying objective of instilling a positive
attitude toward the space science positions at stake during the
Conference.

#  {#section-40 .Heading-0}

*5.3.2 The GPS Booth*

Other information booths were staffed throughout the first three weeks
of the WRC. One was supported by the Interagency GPS Executive Board
(IGEB) and served to describe the global benefits and varied
applications of the Global Positioning System (GPS). This booth had been
used at a number of key international venues leading up to WRC-2003. It
sought to reinforce for delegates the message that was being conveyed by
the U.S. Delegation regarding GPS in the RNSS debates surrounding agenda
item 1.15. As with previous events where the booth was displayed, very
positive feedback was received from delegates as they became aware of
the many benefits GPS provides in everyday life. Representatives from
NASA and the U.S. Coast Guard staffed the booth throughout the
Conference.

The exhibit presentation was very successful. The interest by the
delegates in GPS and related information was high, with a majority of
the foot traffic coming from Africa, South America, the Middle East and
Asia. Many inquiries concerned the potential GPS uses in the following
fields:

-   [Agriculture]{.underline} \-- How is GPS used in an agricultural
    environment? How do farmers benefit from its use? How much does it
    cost?

-   [Aviation]{.underline} \-- How airports in central and southern
    Africa were being equipped for GPS use?

-   [Maritime]{.underline} \-- How could GPS be adapted for use in
    rivers, ports and harbors? What would GPS do in these environments?

-   [Transportation]{.underline} \-- How could GPS support
    transportation? What types of transportation could benefit the most,
    trucking, rail or shipping?

-   [Safety of Life]{.underline} \-- How could GPS be employed in
    establishing a central-dispatch operation for police, fire and EMS
    services?

# 5.4 U.S.-Sponsored Seminars on Wi-Fi Technology {#u.s.-sponsored-seminars-on-wi-fi-technology .Heading-0}

One of the highest-profile agenda items at WRC-2003 was Agenda Item 1.5.
This agenda item included a proposal to allocate an additional 455 MHz
of spectrum in the 5 GHz region of the spectrum for mobile devices,
including wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs), many of which operate
according to the popularly known Wi-Fi standard. The agenda item
included several other allocations as well.

Before and during the Conference, many administrations expressed
concerns about whether a significant portion of this 5 GHz spectrum
should be made available for wireless LANs operating outdoors. The
United States supported outdoor use, a position that provided the
maximum flexibility for wireless LAN operations in the band, while
safeguarding the existing incumbents. Permitting outdoor use of the 5
GHz band enables many new and innovative services, including distance
learning, telemedicine, community networking, and access to broadband
networks, particularly for rural communities.

To showcase some of the important applications of these networking
technologies---and particularly their use in outdoor environments---the
U.S. and Canadian delegations jointly gave a seminar called "Wireless
Networking Applications Around the World." The U.S. portion of the
seminar highlighted the potential services that could be offered using
wireless LANs. It also provided a brief overview of the U.S. regulatory
framework and reported on the U.S. wireless LAN industry. Three case
studies of wireless LAN applications were presented:

-   A project linking 18 Native American reservations in southern
    California, enabling distance learning, language preservation, and
    other services;

-   A community networking project in India; and

-   A project providing emergency communications for Mt. Everest
    climbing expeditions, along with broadband connectivity for Sherpa
    villagers near the Mt. Everest base camp.

The Canadian portion of the seminar addressed similar topics and
provided examples of Canadian wireless LAN applications.

The seminar was offered on two successive days during the second week of
the Conference, at a time when the United States and other delegations
were trying to provide information on Wi-Fi technologies to other
delegations---particularly those whose administrations could benefit
from the networking applications made possible by wireless LANs.
Approximately 15 people attended the first seminar and 30 attended the
second one. A light lunch was served after each seminar, allowing U.S.
Delegates the opportunity to discuss the relevant issues with delegates
from other administrations.

The seminar effectively reinforced the U.S. position supporting outdoor
use of wireless LANs. Attendees favorably responded to the seminar, many
asking for electronic copies of the presentations. The U.S. Delegation
issued a press release discussing the seminar. The Associated Press and
Communications Daily both ran stories about the seminar, and the overall
Wi-Fi allocation issue became one of the notable press stories coming
out of the Conference.

# 5.5 Commitment to Regional Cooperation {#commitment-to-regional-cooperation .Heading-0}

As stated in Section 2 of this report, the preparatory phase of WRC-2003
involved unprecedented coordination with U.S. partners in CITEL. This
coordination and cooperation continued throughout the Conference. Two
members of the informal core group of the Delegation were detailed to
work closely with CITEL, which held regular meetings during the WRC.

WRC-2003 was also notable because it saw the growth and maturation of
regional groupings beyond the Americas (CITEL), Western Europe (CEPT)
and the Asia-Pacific region (APT). The African Telecommunications Union
(ATU), an arm of the African Union (previously known as the Organization
of African Unity) signed a cooperation agreement with CITEL at the
Conference. ATU was founded in December 1999 to bring together African
governments and private-sector entities to promote the rapid development
of information and communications technologies in Africa. The United
States has long recognized the importance of the African countries as
key participants in WRCs, and the work of the ITU-R in general. The U.S.
Delegation celebrated the CITEL-ATU partnership---and its longstanding
relationship with the African administrations---in a dinner in Geneva,
held during the second week of the Conference.

WRC-2003 also witnessed increased activity by the Regional Commonwealth
in the field of Communications (RCC), which was created in 1991 by the
administrations of the former Soviet republics to coordinate postal and
telecommunication activities. By WRC-2003, the RCC was composed of 12
administrations (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and
Ukraine).

The RCC proposals to WRC-03 were well developed and coordinated in
advance of the Conference. During the Conference, the RCC played an
active and sometimes decisive role in the resolution of a number of
issues, as it provided an alternative to CEPT dominance over Region 1
administrations. In preparation for the next Conference, efforts should
be made to increase cooperation/coordination with RCC on a regional
(through CITEL) and bilateral basis.

#   {#section-41 .Heading-0}

**6.0 CONCLUSION**

#  {#section-42 .Heading-0}

# As this report indicates, the U.S. Delegation succeeded in meeting its major objectives for this Conference. In some cases, it succeeded by adhering to its original proposals and winning support from other delegations. In other cases, it crafted or agreed to compromise proposals that differed from original U.S. positions but nonetheless protected the interests that those positions had been designed to safeguard. Many of these compromises involved the utilization of innovative and advanced engineering techniques, taking full advantage of the tools technology provides to solve outstanding problems.  {#as-this-report-indicates-the-u.s.-delegation-succeeded-in-meeting-its-major-objectives-for-this-conference.-in-some-cases-it-succeeded-by-adhering-to-its-original-proposals-and-winning-support-from-other-delegations.-in-other-cases-it-crafted-or-agreed-to-compromise-proposals-that-differed-from-original-u.s.-positions-but-nonetheless-protected-the-interests-that-those-positions-had-been-designed-to-safeguard.-many-of-these-compromises-involved-the-utilization-of-innovative-and-advanced-engineering-techniques-taking-full-advantage-of-the-tools-technology-provides-to-solve-outstanding-problems. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-43 .Heading-0}

# There were multiple reasons for U.S. success in Geneva. As already noted, the business-like tone of the Conference enabled the Delegation\'s leadership to concentrate time and effort on resolving agenda items, not extraneous issues. In addition, some attention has been given in this report to the substantial weight and importance given by this Delegation to organized outreach work, which clearly paid dividends for the U.S. in Geneva.  {#there-were-multiple-reasons-for-u.s.-success-in-geneva.-as-already-noted-the-business-like-tone-of-the-conference-enabled-the-delegations-leadership-to-concentrate-time-and-effort-on-resolving-agenda-items-not-extraneous-issues.-in-addition-some-attention-has-been-given-in-this-report-to-the-substantial-weight-and-importance-given-by-this-delegation-to-organized-outreach-work-which-clearly-paid-dividends-for-the-u.s.-in-geneva. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-44 .Heading-0}

# Further, throughout the three-year preparation cycle for this WRC, the United States was more involved and integrated into the CITEL preparation process than ever before. This has been an evolutionary process; it did not begin with this WRC. But in many ways, the regional trend came to fruition at this Conference, and CITEL was a major factor to be reckoned with. The importance of unity within CITEL---and not only for issues that solely affect Region 2---cannot be overstated. As other regional telecommunications groups arise and mature, CITEL is more than keeping pace; it has become a leader. {#further-throughout-the-three-year-preparation-cycle-for-this-wrc-the-united-states-was-more-involved-and-integrated-into-the-citel-preparation-process-than-ever-before.-this-has-been-an-evolutionary-process-it-did-not-begin-with-this-wrc.-but-in-many-ways-the-regional-trend-came-to-fruition-at-this-conference-and-citel-was-a-major-factor-to-be-reckoned-with.-the-importance-of-unity-within-citeland-not-only-for-issues-that-solely-affect-region-2cannot-be-overstated.-as-other-regional-telecommunications-groups-arise-and-mature-citel-is-more-than-keeping-pace-it-has-become-a-leader. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-45 .Heading-0}

# One additional reason for success should also be mentioned, however---the more for its likelihood of being taken for granted or overlooked in discussing WRCs. Perhaps the most fundamental reason for the success of the U.S. Delegation was the involvement of many individuals with enormous cumulative experience on their issues of expertise. At their best, WRC delegations bring this cumulative expertise---in which the United States is unsurpassed---as the greatest tool in representing their countries\' interests. The United States is continually sharpening and fine-tuning this tool, through the perpetual cycle of ITU-R meetings, studies and WRCs themselves. Only through these individuals is the United States able to adequately promote and defend its interests across the broad spectrum of issues in which WRC decisions might affect it. {#one-additional-reason-for-success-should-also-be-mentioned-howeverthe-more-for-its-likelihood-of-being-taken-for-granted-or-overlooked-in-discussing-wrcs.-perhaps-the-most-fundamental-reason-for-the-success-of-the-u.s.-delegation-was-the-involvement-of-many-individuals-with-enormous-cumulative-experience-on-their-issues-of-expertise.-at-their-best-wrc-delegations-bring-this-cumulative-expertisein-which-the-united-states-is-unsurpassedas-the-greatest-tool-in-representing-their-countries-interests.-the-united-states-is-continually-sharpening-and-fine-tuning-this-tool-through-the-perpetual-cycle-of-itu-r-meetings-studies-and-wrcs-themselves.-only-through-these-individuals-is-the-united-states-able-to-adequately-promote-and-defend-its-interests-across-the-broad-spectrum-of-issues-in-which-wrc-decisions-might-affect-it. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-46 .Heading-0}

# U.S. WRC delegations are not, of course, static over multiple generations of Conferences. Rather, they can be considered periodic, roving colleges, in which the experienced members train and mentor those delegates just coming into positions of responsibility. The result is, of course, an evolving core group of experienced experts who are among the global leaders in their fields. These include government and private sector representatives. The U.S. preparatory system, however cumbersome it can be, maximizes the input of all of these parties and harnesses them in the national interest. WRC-2003 exemplifies what this system can produce. {#u.s.-wrc-delegations-are-not-of-course-static-over-multiple-generations-of-conferences.-rather-they-can-be-considered-periodic-roving-colleges-in-which-the-experienced-members-train-and-mentor-those-delegates-just-coming-into-positions-of-responsibility.-the-result-is-of-course-an-evolving-core-group-of-experienced-experts-who-are-among-the-global-leaders-in-their-fields.-these-include-government-and-private-sector-representatives.-the-u.s.-preparatory-system-however-cumbersome-it-can-be-maximizes-the-input-of-all-of-these-parties-and-harnesses-them-in-the-national-interest.-wrc-2003-exemplifies-what-this-system-can-produce. .Heading-0}

#  {#section-47 .Heading-0}

# It remains only to say that for those privileged enough to be part of this effort, there is often a sense of duty, responsibility and dedication that exceeds any other that may be experienced in one\'s career. And this, the extraordinary dedication of already-dedicated individuals, is perhaps as much responsible for achieving the results of WRC-2003, or any other WRC, as any other single cause that could be analyzed or discussed here.  {#it-remains-only-to-say-that-for-those-privileged-enough-to-be-part-of-this-effort-there-is-often-a-sense-of-duty-responsibility-and-dedication-that-exceeds-any-other-that-may-be-experienced-in-ones-career.-and-this-the-extraordinary-dedication-of-already-dedicated-individuals-is-perhaps-as-much-responsible-for-achieving-the-results-of-wrc-2003-or-any-other-wrc-as-any-other-single-cause-that-could-be-analyzed-or-discussed-here. .Heading-0}

The authors of this report therefore express their hopes and wishes to
all future U.S. delegates for the most successful conclusion of the next
WRC---and of all future Conferences.

[^1]: WRC-2000, for example, was hosted by Turkey and held in Istanbul
    in May-June 2000.

[^2]: The ITU's original plan for WRC-2003 was to hold the conference in
    Caracas, Venezuela. Political and economic conditions in that
    country, however, prompted the ITU to alter the venue to Geneva.

[^3]: These offices were provisioned practically to support a large
    working delegation for one month's time. The larger room was divided
    so that part of the space could accommodate meetings of up to 30
    people. The remainder of the room was provisioned with 16 computers,
    Internet access via ISDN, three printers, a fax, a document shredder
    and eight telephones. A copier, mailboxes and a supply cabinet were
    placed in the hall. The Ambassador\'s office had a computer,
    telephone and fax as well as a medium-sized table, which was used
    for small meetings.

[^4]: Given ITU budgetary constraints, one or more of these Conferences
    may not be held according to the current timeline. There was some
    discussion, for example, of holding the next WRC in 2008, rather
    than 2007.