**NTIA Report 05-427**

**WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCES**

**Recommendations for Improvement in the**

**United States Preparatory Process**

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.502777777777778in"
height="3.251388888888889in"}

*special report*

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE  National Telecommunications and
Information Administration**

**NTIA Report 05-427**

**WORLD RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCES**

**Recommendations for Improvement in the**

**United States Preparatory Process**

####### **Principal Author**

####### **Darlene A. Drazenovich**

***Contributors***

***Karl Nebbia, Vernita Harris,***

***Derrick Owens, Robin Haines, Charles Glass, Chris Hofer***

***James Vorhies***

***Chief, International Spectrum Plans and Policy Division***

***Fredrick R. Wentland***

***Associate Administrator***

***Office of Spectrum Management***

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="1.7583333333333333in"
height="1.7472222222222222in"}

**U.S. Department of Commerce**

**Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary**

Michael D Gallagher, Assistant Secretary

for Communications and Information

####### **May 2005**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Executive Summary 1

A.  Introduction 5

B.  Background 7

C.  Analysis and Recommendations 9

> 1\. Federal Agency Senior Management Involvement, Leadership and WRC
> Goals 9
>
> Background 9
>
> Comments 9
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 10
>
> 2\. Federal Government Preparation Process 11
>
> Background 11
>
> Comments 11
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 12
>
> 3\. Non-Government Preparation Process 13
>
> Background 13
>
> Comments 13
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 13
>
> 4\. FCC/NTIA Coordination Process 14
>
> Background 14
>
> Comments 14
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 16
>
> 5\. Study Group and National Committee Process Related to WRC Agenda
> Process 17
>
> Background 17
>
> Comments 18
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 19
>
> 6\. Outreach and Consultation with Other Countries 20
>
> Background 20
>
> Comments 21
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 23
>
> 7\. Forming the WRC Delegation 24
>
> Background 24
>
> Comments 26
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 29
>
> 8\. Staffing and Budgeting WRC Activities 32
>
> Background 32
>
> Comments 32
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 34
>
> 9\. Training 35
>
> Background 35
>
> Comments 36
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 37
>
> 10\. WRC Domestic Implementation Process 37
>
> Background 37
>
> Comments 38
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 39
>
> 11\. General Areas/Other WRC Issues 40
>
> Background 40
>
> Comments 40
>
> Conclusions and Recommendations 41

D. Summary 43

Appendix A 45

Federal Register Notice 46

Appendix B 49

Comments Received 49

**Executive Summary**

The United States' radiocommunication interests are global.
Communications are the backbone of our economic and national security
and radiocommunications are a critical component of the United States'
overall communications interests. Radio signals traverse borders, oceans
and space. The mobility of radio systems leads to services,
technologies, and operations that span the global community and economy.
The successful development and implementation of radiocommunications
depend on international agreements reached at World Radiocommunication
Conferences (WRCs). These conferences meet every three to four years
under the auspices of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to
update the international radio regulations on the use of the radio
spectrum. The ITU is a specialized agency of the United Nations, and has
189 member states. The outcome of WRCs provides the international
regulatory framework for the use of radiocommunication systems vital to
U.S. economic growth, U.S. national security, safety of life and
property, and scientific investigations. The United States must continue
its success at these international conferences in negotiating spectrum
allocations and regulations forward-looking and flexible enough to
accommodate technologies and operations that the United States will need
in the future.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its report,
*Telecommunications: Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability
Needed to Improve Spectrum Management* (GAO-02-096), recommended that
the Department of State, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
"jointly review the adequacy of the preparation process following the
2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) and develop
recommendations for improvements."[^1] The GAO noted challenges that the
United States faces in its WRC preparation.[^2] The challenges include
development of positions and proposals, appointment of the U.S. WRC
Ambassador, formation of the U.S. WRC Delegation (Delegation),
maintenance of a cadre of U.S. Government employees to serve as U.S.
negotiators, designation of staff and financial resources, and an
increasing dependence on regional representation. The GAO suggested that
the United States must assess these challenges at the start of the U.S.
preparation process for developing U.S. positions to ensure success
during the process.

NTIA reviewed the U.S. processes for preparation and participation in
WRCs considering input from the private sector[^3] and the federal
agencies, reports of past WRC Ambassadors, and NTIA staff experience. As
a result, NTIA concluded that the United States has been very successful
in achieving its objectives at these conferences. For example, the
United States successfully promoted, the growth of international
satellite services and implementation of multiple and flexible
technologies for public mobile communications. The United States has not
only met these commercial needs, it has also fulfilled requirements for
safety operations, national security and scientific exploration. At the
same time, NTIA noted that increasing international

competition in radio services and technologies and potentially
conflicting requirements for the radio spectrum make finding solutions
more challenging.

The United States has improved its preparatory process for WRCs,
overcoming many of the concerns raised in the past regarding its
activities leading up to WRCs. In preparing for the most recent WRC,
WRC-03, NTIA and the FCC developed most positions and proposals far
earlier than at previous conferences. Both agencies established new
processes for resolving conflicts. The United States also raised its
level of participation in preparatory meetings of other regions. The
United States built strong relationships and was able to bring together
a united front within the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission
[Permanent Consultative Committee
II](http://www.citel.oas.org/ccp2-radio.asp) (CITEL PCCII).[^4] As a
result of increased U.S. participation in CITEL, the United States was
able to positively influence the outcome of Inter-American proposals and
positions. This not only served to meet U.S. goals, but also aided in
coalescing regional objectives. This is significant because the
international negotiating mechanisms continue to evolve toward a greater
emphasis on regional positions. The U.S. Ambassador to WRC-03,
Ambassador Janice Obuchowski, noted that the United States' success at
WRC-2003 "would not have been possible without painstaking and
comprehensive preparatory efforts prior to the conference."[^5]
Ambassador Obuchowski added that "we were the beneficiaries of effective
preparatory processes spearheaded by the Federal Communications
Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, and this (State) Department, through the Bureau of
Economic and Business Affairs, Office of International Communications
and Information Policy."[^6] The United States also accomplished its
objectives at WRC-2000 in Istanbul, Turkey. However, Ambassador Gail
Schoettler asserts that "even though the United States was extremely
successful in achieving its political and economic objectives at the
World Radiocommunication Conference 2000 (WRC-2000), there is room for
improvement."[^7] Ambassador Schoettler states that, "as global
telecommunications and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
evolve, we must make sure our methods are still relevant to accomplish
our spectrum goals."[^8]

NTIA concludes that the United States cannot rest on its past successes.
The evolving international political, technological and economic
situation demands constant vigilance and a willingness to regularly
evaluate and improve the U.S. processes. Based on its review, NTIA
recommends further refinements in the U.S. preparatory process through:

1.  Increased agency senior level engagement in the preparations;

2.  Improved cooperation and coordination of federal and non-federal
    preparations; and

3.  Early international consultation and communication and preparation
    and formation of the Delegation.

NTIA also concludes that timely implementation of WRC results is
critical to achieving the full benefit of these conferences and
recommends that the FCC and NTIA review and act upon the WRC outcomes
immediately after the close of each conference. To meet this objective,
shortly after WRC-03, the FCC Chairman and the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce for Communications and Information agreed to timely
implementation of WRC decisions. The FCC has since completed action on
WRC-03 outcomes.

**Introduction**

Radiocommunication services, operations and technologies have become
global in nature, for this reason, World Radiocommunication Conferences
(WRCs) have increased in importance to the U.S. economic growth, and the
critical functions of federal agencies, particularly those dealing with
safety, national security and homeland defense, and scientific
exploration. The U.S. economy depends heavily on radiocommunication
technology development and services, both for the communities that
produce and deploy them, and also for the American public and businesses
that use them. Many of the Department of Transportation (DOT) activities
for maintaining safe transportation networks as well as many functions
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) operate
globally and rely on spectrum. The Department of Defense (DOD) must be
able to perform its mission at any time, in any place. Without spectrum
these agencies and many others could not do their jobs. WRCs provide the
lifeblood of allocated spectrum. More and more, they also provide
opportunities for harmonization of spectrum for applications, helping to
decrease manufacturing costs and ultimately the cost of services.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is
the executive branch agency principally responsible for domestic
telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA is the
President\'s principal adviser on telecommunications and information
policy issues and, in this role, frequently works with other executive
branch agencies to develop and present the Administration\'s position on
these issues. NTIA also manages the federal use of the spectrum,
performs cutting-edge telecommunications research and engineering, and
resolves technical telecommunications issues for the federal government
and the private sector. NTIA works to spur innovation, encourage
competition, help create jobs and provide consumers with more choices
and better quality telecommunications products and services at lower
prices. NTIA processes the federal agencies\' requests for frequency
assignments; coordinates current and future spectrum requirements among
the federal agencies; and along with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) and Department of State (State), develops and promotes
the United States\' positions on spectrum management issues within
international treaty bodies and other fora. Because of its unique role
as policy adviser and spectrum manager, NTIA must bring together the
spectrum interests of the federal agencies and advance policies that
promote the benefits of technological developments in the United States
for all users of telecommunications services. As the manager of federal
spectrum, NTIA promotes policies to:

-   accommodate new technologies that need spectrum;

-   improve spectrum efficiency;

-   increase private sector access to scarce spectrum resources; and

-   plan for future federal spectrum needs, including those critical
    national defense, public safety and law enforcement needs that
    require long-range spectrum planning.

To evaluate the processes used by the United States to prepare for and
participate in WRCs, NTIA looked to the experience of key U.S. players
at past WRCs. NTIA requested the views of the federal agencies through
the Radio Conference Subcommittee (RCS) of the

Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), reviewed reports of
past delegations and Ambassadors, conducted internal discussions among
NTIA's WRC participants, and sought the public's comments to identify
areas for improvement to the United States' WRC preparation process.

NTIA sought the public's comment on a number of areas.[^9] In response
to the NTIA Notice, NTIA received comments from Winstar Communications,
LLC; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the
United States International Telecommunication Union Association
(USITUA); and the New York Satellite Industries, LLC and Final Analysis
Communications Services, Inc. (NYS and FACS).[^10] Each respondent's
comments are summarized under the various sections in which comments
were requested. NYS and FACS commented that they have had success
working with NTIA and the FCC on a number of matters and they suggested
"the current WRC preparation and interagency process needs only a
'tune-up' not a major overhaul."[^11] NASA stated that the United States
is consistently very successful at WRCs.[^12] According to USITUA, "the
United States is generally quite effective at conferences, but often at
greater cost than perhaps necessary given some of the hurdles that we
create for ourselves, such as; dealing with funding, time of ambassador
appointment, etc."[^13] NYS and FACS commented that the United States
Government deftly managed a large number of agenda items at WRC-03, to
unprecedented success, often in the face of broad multinational
resistance.[^14] NYS and FACS also emphasized that the United States
Government team should be applauded for its preparation and achievements
at the recent WRC-03.[^15]

**Background**

World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRCs) set the world stage for
future technological development by allocating radio frequency spectrum
to radio services, establishing spectrum use coordination methods,
setting international rules for radio equipment operation, and
identifying spectrum for specific uses such as Third Generation (3G)
wireless systems. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an
intergovernmental organization within the United Nations that
specializes in the field of telecommunications. The ITU brings together
governments and private industry to coordinate the establishment and
operation of global telecommunication networks and services. Every three
to four years, the ITU convenes WRCs to review and revise the ITU Radio
Regulations. These Radio Regulations constitute a treaty on
radiocommunications covering the use of the radio-frequency spectrum by
member nations.

WRCs are an important endeavor for the United States because we are able
to bring new and innovative technologies to the world community. NTIA,
with the support of the federal agencies, works closely with State and
the FCC in preparing for and participating in these conferences. The
U.S. preparatory process also facilitates the highly valued involvement
of manufacturers, service providers, and non-federal spectrum users.
This results in delegations with wide interests and diverse goals.

The U.S. preparatory process for WRCs follows two related paths:
technical preparation and proposal/position preparation. The ITU
conducts technical preparations through the ITU Radiocommunication
Sector (ITU-R) study group and Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM)
processes.[^16] The United States participates internationally in these
processes through the efforts of federal and non-federal representatives
overseen by the Department of State. The United States Delegation
prepares technical studies for WRCs under State's International
Telecommunication Advisory Committee (ITAC).[^17] The National Committee
(NC) of the ITAC-R (covering the ITU's Radiocommunication Sector
(ITU-R)) assists the United States Government in technical preparations
for international meetings. Under this advisory committee, the public
and executive branch agencies participate actively in government
decision-making activities. With respect to technical preparations for
WRCs, the Department of State uses the ITAC-R to develop inputs to the
ITU-R study groups and the CPM to form the technical, operational and
regulatory basis for WRC decisions, but does not employ the ITAC to
develop preliminary views or proposals directly related to WRCs.

The federal and non-federal WRC positions and proposal preparation
processes operate independently. The federal preparation process
includes NTIA, which represents the views of the Administration. NTIA is
the President\'s principal adviser on telecommunications and

information policy and manages the federal government\'s use of radio
spectrum.[^18] The RCS meets monthly to discuss, develop and approve
federal agency views, positions and proposals on WRC issues to recommend
to NTIA.[^19] NTIA reviews those recommendations and formulates federal
inputs to the process. In some cases after this review, NTIA modifies
the positions and proposals developed within the IRAC in keeping with
Administration policies. NTIA then provides its positions and proposals
to the FCC for consideration and further negotiation. The FCC performs
WRC preparations for non-federal interests. The FCC, an independent
agency established by the Communications Act of 1934, manages the use of
radio spectrum by state and local governments and the private sector.
The FCC represents the views of its constituents and receives their
input on WRC views, positions, and proposals. The FCC develops
non-federal inputs under its WRC Advisory Committee (WAC).

**Analysis and Recommendations**

This section of the report focuses on the following areas within the
United States preparatory process: federal agency senior management
involvement, leadership and WRC goals, federal government preparation
process, non-government preparation process, FCC/NTIA coordination
process, study group/national committee process related to WRC agenda
items, forming the WRC Delegation, staffing and budgeting WRC
activities, outreach and consultations with other countries, training,
WRC implementation process and other WRC issues. NTIA sought information
regarding improvements in these categories in the Request for Comment.

**1. Federal Agency Senior Management Involvement, Leadership and WRC
Goals**

> *Background*

The United States' goal is to ensure that the WRC preparations reflect
and further United States' telecommunications policy objectives.
Traditionally, WRC preparations have relied heavily on a cadre of career
government staff and industry participants. Where conflicts have arisen,
these individuals have sometimes been unable to break through them, at
times resulting in late formulation of U.S. positions and proposals as
noted by the GAO and industry. Prior to WRC-03, State coordinated and
led a meeting of U.S. Government Principals to ensure higher level,
interagency oversight of WRC preparations. The Principals Group
addressed possible nominees to head the U.S. WRC delegation, resources
needed for the delegation and the WRC, and resolution of contentious
issues.

NTIA requested comments on the improvement in the involvement of senior
agency management and early agreements on WRC positions. NTIA requested
comments regarding what goals the United States should have for WRCs and
how to establish these goals.

> *Comments*

USITUA encouraged NTIA to engage at senior levels in important regional
meetings addressing WRC proposals and stated that it would be extremely
beneficial for NTIA's Assistant Secretary to ensure that his/her senior
level counterparts in the IRAC agencies have a commensurate
understanding of the WRC and the associated issues.[^20] With respect to
ways to improve communications and coordination between NTIA and the
FCC, Winstar commented that the reconciliation process sometimes takes
an extraordinarily long period of time and that contentious issues
should be raised to higher-level management when necessary, to force all
parties to justify and support their positions.[^21] The NYS and FACS
commented that there would have been insufficient support for a low
earth orbiting satellite feeder link allocation in the

1.4 GHz band at WRC-2003 without United States Government advocacy,
including senior officials.[^22]

NASA commented that an Office of Spectrum Policy within the Executive
Office of the President would go a long way toward obtaining more
balance in the consideration of government interest vis-à-vis
non-government issues, while improving the FCC's response time on
pending matters by setting priorities.[^23]

The USITUA suggested that the United States' goal for WRCs should be to
protect and advance U.S. interests.[^24] USITUA added that these
interests are established through the existing proposal and agenda
setting process.[^25] NASA commented that WRC goals should be based upon
the requirements of both the federal and non-federal entities.[^26]
These goals should be established and disseminated by an Office of
Spectrum Policy and should be in the best interest of the country as a
whole, considering both federal and non-federal requirements.[^27] From
a private sector perspective, Winstar argued that the United States'
goals for WRCs should reflect industry interests, including development
and acceptance of new technology and services to promote export of
United States goods and services.[^28] Also according to Winstar, the
United States' goals should reflect minimizing regulatory barriers for
deployment and expansion of services, including in border areas.[^29]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

The Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and the FCC
Chairman have made coordination and dialog regarding their efforts in
radiocommunications policy and regulation an essential goal. Their
partnership with the Department of State, through the leadership of the
U.S. Coordinator and Deputy Assistant Secretary for International
Telecommunications Policies, ensures a well-focused and integrated
foreign policy with respect to telecommunications.

Establishing and maintaining high-level WRC oversight in the federal
government is fundamental to the success of United States preparation
for WRCs. The involvement of senior-level leadership in the WRC
preparatory process would help to further United States'
telecommunications policy objectives. Senior-level involvement will
lessen delays in resolving difficult issues and identification of policy
perspectives on agenda items. The oversight of WRC related activities
should be at the Assistant Secretary level, or equivalent including the
U.S. Coordinator for Communications and Information Policy, in the three
lead agencies, State, NTIA and the FCC, thereby assuring availability of
resources and a higher level of visibility within the chain of
command.[^30] This can be accomplished by utilizing the U.S. Government
"Principals

Group" that State coordinated and led for WRC-2003. The principals,
Assistant Secretary level or equivalent including the U.S. Coordinator
for Communications and Information Policy, from the three agencies
addressed such issues as possible nominees to recommend to the President
to head the U.S. WRC Delegations, resources that agencies could commit
to the WRC and the preparation process, and resolution of contentious
issues. NTIA recommends that State continue leadership of this group and
that it expand to meet throughout the WRC cycle. The principals group
should continue to be active in WRC preparations and should approve WRC
objectives and goals, conduct policy-level discussions, make decisions
where required on controversial issues, and establish overarching
direction for U.S. preparatory activities.

Within the federal agencies, senior-level familiarity with issues could
also facilitate development of executive branch support for WRC
preparations. The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information will invite his/her senior level counterparts in the State
Department, FCC and other relevant federal agencies to participate in
high-level briefings, conducted by executive branch and FCC WRC staff,
to facilitate understanding of key WRC issues. Such briefings could
occur once preliminary views have been developed in the Radio Conference
Subcommittee (RCS), and annually thereafter leading up to the
conference.

Furthermore, while senior-level officials may not directly participate
in the negotiations of a conference, their presence, even if for short
periods, reflects recognition of the importance of WRCs and a respect
from the other administrations that attend. Therefore senior-level
officials from the agencies should continue to attend the conference for
at least a portion of the time.

**2. Federal Government Preparation Process**

> *Background*

The federal and non-federal WRC positions and proposal preparation
processes are independent, but inter-related. The federal preparation
process involves NTIA, which represents the views of the Administration.
NTIA receives the views of the federal agencies through the RCS of the
IRAC, which meets monthly to discuss and approve the federal agencies'
views, positions and proposals on WRC issues. The RCS is closed to
participation by the private sector; however, the FCC voices non-federal
views as a liaison representative in the RCS. Also, private sector
representatives may approach NTIA on an ad hoc basis in order to express
their views. NTIA requested public comment on federal preparations for
WRCs to include seeking views and inputs from non-federal entities and
educating the commercial sector on federal agencies' radiocommunication
requirements and related policies and decisions that effect U.S.
conference proposals.

> *Comments*

The commenters generally agreed that there ought to be private sector
input into the federal government's preparation process. For instance,
NASA commented that time should be made available for coordination
between joint sessions of the NTIA's RCS and the FCC's WRC Advisory
Committee (WAC). Such joint sessions should be for the purpose of
information exchange to reach mutual understanding of federal and
non-federal views.[^31] Furthermore, NASA suggested that greater use can
be made of IRAC members to meet with non-federal entities to exchange
information and provide greater transparency of views.[^32] USITUA
advocated that the WAC is an appropriate forum for government and the
private sector to share information regarding their respective views.
Furthermore, USITUA recommended that an approach or format similar to
the U.S. Delegation "Training Day" prior to WRC-2003, be considered to
brief interested parties on issues under consideration.[^33] USITUA also
encouraged NTIA to "ensure that there be RCS liaisons to the WAC
Industry Working Groups (IWGs) to provide updates on the Government's
preparations."[^34] Winstar agreed that coordinating with the WAC and
the IWGs is a good idea, and further recommended that the government
routinely issue formal requests for written comments prior to major
meetings.[^35]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

Commenters generally agreed that NTIA should improve coordination and
the sharing of views between the government and the commercial sector.
One commenter supported NTIA facilitating meetings between federal
agency representatives and non-federal entities, to exchange information
in order to provide greater transparency of views. NTIA will work to
educate the commercial sector on relevant spectrum policies and
decisions related to the federal agencies' needs that affect U.S. WRC
proposals. Moreover, NTIA will establish briefings on key issues to
interested parties as early in the preparatory process as possible. This
could serve several purposes such as an "Exchange of Views" on hot
topics and contentious issues, so that both federal and non-federal
users can express their views on issues. Such actions will build trust
among the participants, so that they can resolve many difficult issues
and produce good outcomes for the United States.

As a WRC process improvement, the RCS developed high-level work plans
for each WRC-07 agenda item that identify anticipated regulatory or
procedural difficulties and identify action agencies in the work
program. NTIA will forward these work plans to the FCC in order to
provide greater transparency of federal views to the public.

One of the commenters recommended that the federal government's process
could be improved if NTIA would publish the federal agencies' views for
public comment.[^36] NTIA will publish its views on key WRC issues on a
case-by-case basis for public comment before being adopted by NTIA.

**3. Non-Government Preparation Process**

> *Background*

WRC preparations by the private sector and other non-federal entities
take place under the jurisdiction of the FCC as it is responsible for
managing the radio spectrum used by state and local governments,
non-federal public safety agencies, and the private sector pursuant to
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The FCC receives WRC views
and proposal inputs from its constituency through the WAC. The results
of the WAC are used to help facilitate discussions between NTIA and the
FCC as final WRC views and proposals are developed. Representatives from
the federal agencies have participated in the WAC process as observers
since the inception of this process. However agencies' participation in
the process is inconsistent at times, because newer agency
representatives do not know the extent to which they can brief the IWGs
of the WAC on the status of RCS views and proposals.

NTIA requested comments regarding federal agencies' participation in the
WAC and if there were other ways in which the federal agencies could
better participate in the process to prepare for a WRC.

> *Comments*

The USITUA suggested that the federal agencies can best participate in
the WAC by encouraging NTIA to maintain its observer role and to seek a
greater role. USITUA also recommended that NTIA designate RCS members to
provide updates to the WAC on IRAC decisions regarding WRC proposals
under their consideration.[^37] According to Winstar, it would be useful
to the U.S. Government representatives in the WAC to provide input on
government interests and concerns regarding various issues. Winstar also
comments that the government should not attempt to influence WAC
decisions because the WAC is a forum for the private sector, but rather
ensure that government interests are understood and all parties'
viewpoints are considered.[^38] NASA believes that closer liaison
between NTIA and the FCC (through the RCS and WAC) is appropriate so
that the views of the respective groups can be better understood.[^39]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

Federal agency participation in the FCC's WAC process provides
significant value to both private sector and the executive branch, even
though the agencies participate only as observers. As proposed by one of
the commenters, federal agency participation can be improved and
expanded through management controls and clear guidance from NTIA. As
recommended by the commenters, the RCS has formalized designation of
government liaisons to attend each IWG meeting. NTIA will provide
guidance to the RCS on federal agency participation in the FCC WAC
process. This approach will allow the RCS liaisons to brief the IWG on
the status of the preliminary views and proposal developments in the RCS
and IRAC processes.

**4. FCC/NTIA Coordination Process**

> *Background*

The Department of State, in consultation with NTIA and the FCC,
determines national positions for WRCs. The IRAC provides advice to NTIA
based on deliberations within the RCS, while the WAC, working primarily
in IWGs, advises the FCC. To avoid isolation between the two advisory
processes, which operate concurrently, an FCC liaison attends IRAC and
RCS meetings, while NTIA and other federal agency representatives attend
WAC and IWG meetings as observers.

In most cases, the FCC provides industry positions and proposals to NTIA
as soon as the WAC approves them, without denoting explicit FCC
acceptance. NTIA, on the other hand, provides its approved positions and
proposals to the FCC. This assures the FCC that the published views are
those of NTIA and not merely the recommendations of the IRAC. Once NTIA
and the FCC have received each other's positions and proposals on an
issue, the reconciliation begins. In this reconciliation process, NTIA
and FCC strive to reach a common agreement on U.S. positions and
proposals.

In its request for comment, NTIA sought the public's views on whether
the federal and non-federal advisory processes should remain
independent. NTIA also requested comments on improvements to the
communications and coordination processes between the FCC and the
executive branch agencies that work with NTIA on spectrum issues. NTIA
also asked for comments regarding steps that could be taken to resolve
difficult issues and whether timelines were needed to identify difficult
issues early in the WRC preparatory process.

Early convergence and agreement on views and positions are vital to the
success of U.S. objectives. Participants in the WRC preparatory process
should prepare initial technical studies or U.S. views early enough in
the process to ensure sufficient time for stakeholder coordination,
technical review and further analysis. Therefore, NTIA asked whether it
is necessary to energize agenda items and their associated studies if no
activity has occurred by a certain point in time in the preparation
process.

> *Comments*

NASA, Winstar and USITUA agreed that federal and non-federal advisory
processes should remain independent. USITUA supported its position, by
stating "many aspects of deliberations about spectrum requirements and
positions are related to potentially sensitive system and equipment
procurements that should not be part of the transparency requirements of
a FACA process which enables any entity, foreign or domestic, government
or non-government, to participate in the WAC process."[^40] USITUA also
noted that the uniqueness of certain government issues are more
appropriately addressed in a separate process, and that the private
sector entities, should have the opportunity to develop their views
without the government

having a decisional role in the process.[^41] Winstar commented that
there is concern that the federal government's interests would dominate
in the formulation of proposals if there was not independence between
the NTIA and FCC coordination processes.[^42] NASA asserted that "joint
sessions of the RCS/WAC should be convened to facilitate an
understanding of the respective federal and non-federal views."[^43]

There are mixed views on the submission of WAC documents directly to
NTIA, the IRAC, and the RCS without FCC bureau approval. Winstar
commented that the present process works efficiently and that inserting
FCC review prior to NTIA consideration would unnecessarily cause delay
and concerns in the overall process.[^44] USITUA recommended that the
current process should be retained.[^45] NASA suggested that "the FCC
should reconcile and coordinate the views of its bureaus before sending
proposals to the NTIA and IRAC."[^46]

Winstar suggested that a process be developed to forecast how many
contentious issues may arise and to plan ahead for deploying personnel
and resources.[^47] USITUA believes that the establishment of regular
meetings between NTIA and the FCC, as designated under the recent
Memorandum of Agreement, is critical and recommends they be used to also
discuss progress on the U.S. preliminary views and proposals for the
WRCs as they develop.[^48]

NTIA sought public comment on how to resolve difficult issues and
whether timelines should be developed early in the process to identify
them. Winstar argued that contentious issues can usually be identified
early and that mutual timelines should be agreed upon to resolve
them.[^49] NASA commented that an Office of Spectrum Policy should be
established in the executive branch to resolve contentious issues.[^50]
USITUA supported establishment of early timelines for resolving
non-consensus issues and believes the Department of State has an
important role in that process to bridge any impasse that may occur, as
it has in the past.[^51] USITUA also recommended an interim step that
allows interested private sector parties to meet with federal agency
personnel to discuss the difficult issues and to try to reach a mutually
satisfactory compromise.[^52]

With respect to the final questions regarding the necessity to energize
agenda items by a certain point in the preparation process, commenters
do not believe that any action is necessary if no studies have occurred.
USITUA asserted that if there is not sufficient government or commercial
interest in undertaking the relevant studies necessary to advance or
impact an agenda

item, then no action should be taken on the agenda item.[^53] Winstar
stated that this process is driven by self-interest and that there is no
need for additional action on the part of the United States
Government.[^54] NASA also commented that if no activities have been
undertaken in the study group on a particular issue, it is because there
was no interest by the participant administrations.[^55]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

The commenters supported keeping the federal and non-federal WRC
preparatory processes independent, and NTIA agrees with this point. Many
aspects of deliberations in the RCS involve sensitive national security
issues and classified information on frequency use in certain bands.
Also, federal agency representatives deliberate advantages and
disadvantages when forming WRC views and proposals that relate to the
compatibility of government systems that should not be transparent to
the public. NTIA believes that it is in the best interest of the nation
that the federal agencies formulate their WRC views in closed sessions.

One commenter advocated that the FCC should review and coordinate WAC
documents prior to NTIA consideration.[^56] Another commenter, however,
suggested that the FCC's prior approval would unnecessarily cause delays
in the process.[^57] NTIA will continue to accept WAC documents into the
RCS as the present process works efficiently. However, NTIA prefers the
FCC give an indication of its support on WAC-approved documents prior to
NTIA approval. For WRC-03, the FCC began providing NTIA with FCC Public
Notices which state the FCC's support of WAC proposals. NTIA recommends
that the FCC continue this practice.

Commenters suggested that communications and coordination between the
executive branch and FCC processes can be improved. Therefore, NTIA will
initiate periodic meetings between the WRC coordinators at the NTIA and
FCC, including experts for specific issues. The agenda for these
meetings should include policy-level determination on how to pursue
agenda items, approaches for ITU-R studies to support WRC objectives,
preliminary view and proposal reconciliation, and identification of
contentious issues needing senior management attention.

To ensure success of U.S. objectives for WRC agenda items, early
convergence and agreement on views and positions are vital. In the past,
this has not been the case on all issues and NTIA understands that there
will always be some agenda items where no domestic interest exists,
however, it is important to follow the progress on all agenda items both
domestically and regionally. Despite comments received to the contrary
on this issue, NTIA believes, from past experience, if work is not
progressing on an agenda item(s), it is important to energize that
agenda item(s) and its associated studies by a certain point in the
preparation process. Where no interest exists and no studies have been
undertaken, it is still important to develop preliminary views early in
the process. NTIA will follow the progress of all agenda items
regionally to

ascertain the associated impact on U.S. interests and prepare positions
and strategies based on other regional or country proposals.

In order to achieve success on all agenda items, NTIA will work with the
FCC to determine which, if any, agenda items require the FCC to initiate
its consultation processes early.

**5. Study Group and National Committee Process Related to WRC Agenda
Items**

> *Background*

The U.S. preparatory process for WRCs follows two related paths -
technical preparation and proposal/position preparation. Administrations
and sector members participate in technical preparations in the ITU-R
study group process. Federal and non-federal representatives participate
in this process. State's ITAC-R serves as the mechanism by which the
United States prepares technical studies for WRCs.[^58] The ITAC-R
National Committee (NC) assists the U.S. Government in technical
preparations for international meetings and negotiations. Under this
advisory committee, the public and the executive branch are afforded the
opportunity to participate actively in government decision-making
activities. With respect to technical preparations for WRCs, State uses
the ITAC-R to develop technical study inputs to the ITU-R study groups
and the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) to form the technical,
operational and regulatory basis for WRC decisions. State, however, does
not use the ITAC-R to develop preliminary views or proposals directly
related to WRCs.

Under current ITAC-R processes, positions most frequently develop via
input documents providing technical analysis. The discussion and
negotiation of these documents propel the development of positions
within ITU-R study group activities. If no one submits inputs, the
positions do not develop. Some cases may exist where certain approaches
or certain outcomes that the study groups consider may be contrary to
U.S. policies. In these cases, established policies could guide U.S.
Study Group activity.

The first CPM (CPM-1), which usually occurs immediately after a WRC,
establishes which ITU-R study groups, working parties, or task groups
will work on specific agenda items. However, most agenda items concern a
number of groups. Therefore, the CPM establishes a lead group and
interested groups. Coordination of activity within the ITU-R study
groups and working parties usually progresses through liaison statements
or through appointed liaison representatives. Due to the timing of
meetings, the consideration of liaison statements can take significant
time. Also, as work accelerates, formal liaison may not allow responses
in a timely manner.

NTIA requested comments regarding the National Committee (NC) setting
objectives and policy for WRC studies. NTIA wanted to know whether
closer coordination among various study groups is required and how this
can be accomplished. A question was also asked on whether the U.S. Study
Group process should be aligned with U.S. WRC goals and objectives. NTIA
also sought public input on whether or not federal and non-federal views
on agenda items and supporting documents pursuing U.S. positions should
be developed, approved and disseminated.

> *Comments*

With respect to whether the NC should set objectives and policies
regarding WRC studies, a majority of the commenters agreed that the NC
should not have this authority. NASA argued that the NC "should not be
in the business of setting objectives," but should address technical
content and validity of WRC studies.[^59] According to NASA, an Office
of Spectrum Policy, located in the executive branch, and the IRAC,
representing federal agencies, should establish objectives and
policy.[^60] USITUA advocated that the NC should not have this
authority, but encouraged NTIA to facilitate coordination efforts
between the RCS and WAC on WRC preparatory activities.[^61] Winstar,
however, commented that there ought to be discussion in the NC because
"it is not clear what objectives and policies might be considered."[^62]

NTIA received mixed views from the commenters on whether closer
coordination among study groups is required or not. Winstar commented
that closer coordination is desirable because the current process is not
efficient or very useful in some cases.[^63] USITUA recommended that
there be scheduling improvements between the study groups and the WAC
meetings to maximize participation in both, and minimize impact on
resources given that many participants (government and industry) come
from outside of the Washington, D.C. area.[^64] NASA commented that
closer coordination is not needed and that there ought to be isolation
between the study groups to "properly conduct their scientific and
engineering studies."[^65] NASA added that only when the necessary
expert internal studies have been completed, should studies be shared
with all concerned study groups.[^66]

NASA and USITUA commented that the U.S. study group process should not
be guided to align with United States WRC goals and objectives. NASA
asserted that if the study groups' work is not maintained as "expert
work," then the ITU credibility and technical pre-eminence will
crumble.[^67] NASA also commented that "within the United States, the
objectives and policy for a given WRC, established by an Office of
Spectrum Policy in the executive branch, should be promulgated through
the NC to each of the United States' study group chairmen as guidance in
overseeing the technical studies."[^68] USITUA suggested that the roles
and agendas of the study groups are much broader than for the WRC and
therefore does not support aligning the study groups' process with the
WRC goals and objectives.[^69] Winstar noted that reaching agreement on
WRC goals and objectives is not always easy because of competing
interests and information provided to the various groups to advance
their goals. In this regard, Winstar recommended a government process be
developed that gives the private sector warning prior to a government
decision on a contested issue.[^70]

NTIA received mixed comments on whether a federal or non-federal
position on agenda items, and supporting information, pursuing an
overall U.S. WRC position should be developed, approved, and
distributed. NASA recommended that such positions should be developed
only subsequent to joint meetings between WAC and the RCS, which would
be helpful in solidifying a U.S. position for regional meetings (e.g.
CITEL).[^71] USITUA argued that such federal/non-federal positions and
supporting studies to pursue U.S. positions should be not developed
because "self-interest is perhaps the appropriate motivator for action
on any agenda item."[^72] Winstar supported this suggestion, but noted
that further discussion needs to occur between government and the
private sector on developing positions.[^73]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

Commenters agreed that the NC should not set objectives and policies
regarding WRC studies because agreement on WRC goals and objectives is
difficult due to competing interests. Commenters also suggested that the
U.S. study group process should not be directed to align with U.S. WRC
goals and objectives because the ITU-R study groups have much broader
responsibilities than just WRC preparations. However, NTIA recognizes
that with respect to some agenda items, U.S. policy may already exist.
Therefore, on an exceptional basis, where such policies exist, State,
the FCC and NTIA in conjunction with their constituents will continue to
provide guidance to study group activities.

NTIA believes that broad participation in the ITU-R working parties is
essential to the preparations for any WRC since these groups develop the
technical bases for conference decisions. NTIA believes that government
and private sector interests working together on ITU‑R technical studies
result in higher quality technical studies. NTIA recommends that

U.S. ITU-R working parties develop work programs for WRC agenda item(s).
These work programs could include objectives for U.S. studies for the
various agenda items, specific timeframes and work assignments. Issues
of policy should continue to be resolved within the existing ITAC-R
National Committee structure chaired by State, and co‑chaired by NTIA
and the FCC. This process has proven effective. Issues that cannot be
resolved within the existing ITAC-R National Committee should be
identified as quickly as possible and referred to the Principals' Group
for their review.

### 

###  

**6. Outreach and Consultations with Other Countries**

> *Background*

Building open lines of communication and goodwill with other countries
is crucial in an organization like the ITU, which employs the United
Nations' voting system of \"one country, one vote.\" Because the United
States has only one vote on WRC issues that affect U.S. commercial and
government interests, the United States must actively engage other
administrations to seek their support for U.S. positions. To develop the
relationships necessary to be successful at a WRC, the United States
must prepare appropriately before a WRC begins.

In preparation for WRC-2000 and WRC-03, the Ambassadors to those
conferences led small delegations comprised of the U.S. vice-chairmen,
technical staff and other members of the U.S. WRC team on a very
aggressive bilateral and multilateral consultation effort that covered
several countries and regional organization meetings. These various
discussions gave the United States a chance not only to present the U.S.
positions on key issues, but also to listen closely to other countries'
WRC views. These consultations provided the Delegation with vital
information that the United States used to explore and understand the
reasons behind other administrations\' proposals. This in turn helped
the United States to develop possible compromises that could be
negotiated at the conference.[^74] In some cases, the United States
negotiated joint proposals with other countries. These bilateral and
multilateral meetings were invaluable because the United States was able
to go to the WRC better understanding the strengths and weaknesses of
other administrations' proposals. The United States also knew which
administrations agreed with and would actively support the United
States' goals. The Delegation also understood which administrations
supported or opposed United States' proposals.

NTIA believes that it is important for the United States to coordinate
with other countries in preparation for WRCs. For many years, the United
States has implemented country outreach programs at WRCs. This outreach
effort consists of delegation assignment of individual U.S. delegates to
serve as contacts or liaisons to other country delegations at the
conference. The United States continues to build upon and improve the
outreach programs from conference to conference. The outreach program
enables dissemination of U.S. information to other countries, collection
of information from other countries, and promotion of good relations
with other countries.

NTIA requested comments on the benefits and costs of regional
preparation for WRCs. NTIA also requested comments on the effectiveness
of and need for consultations with other administrations and the
importance of working with other countries outside of the ITU study
groups and the CPM. NTIA also requested comments on the country
contact/outreach program

and its effectiveness. NTIA was interested to learn whether the WRC
outreach efforts should be integrated with other international efforts
of State, the FCC, and NTIA. The final question NTIA asked concerned the
effectiveness and timeliness of the delegation consultations prior to
WRC-03.

> *Comments*

With respect to consultations with other countries, USITUA argued that
this is critical and should be conducted in two parts. The first
consultations, according to USITUA, occurring very early in the process,
should be a listening session where the United States reaches out to
different regions to understand their priority areas.[^75] USITUA also
suggested that once the proposals are developed, the second phase of
consultations should take place prior to the CPM if possible.[^76] NASA
added that consultations depend on specific issues and that the United
States should target key countries for early bi-laterals on contentious
issues.[^77]

NASA also argued that regional preparation is becoming an absolute
requirement for ensuring success at the WRC.[^78] Regional views are
increasingly sought over individual administration views.[^79] According
to NASA, the cost of such regional preparation is a loss of autonomy and
possible compromise of U.S. positions even before the start of the
conference.[^80]

The benefits of full participation in regional preparations for WRCs
(including preparations for the Americas, Europe, Asia/Pacific, the Arab
States and Africa) far outweigh the cost of such participation asserted
USITUA.[^81] USITUA further stated that the WRC is becoming increasingly
regionalized with regions coalescing on proposals and positions prior to
the WRC.[^82] The experience of WRC-03 is quite instructive, according
to USITUA, on how timely engagement and leadership in the regional
processes can yield successful outcomes on U.S. proposals.[^83] The
USITUA concluded that the WRC-03 experience should form the baseline for
future U.S. WRC preparation activities.[^84] As far as regional views
are given high visibility at conferences, and given that U.S. positions
are traditionally influential in Region 2, Winstar advocated that such
preparations are very important.[^85] Winstar stated that it is useful
to participate in other regional processes. [^86]

NTIA requested comments on the importance of working with other
countries outside of the ITU study group and the CPM processes. NASA and
USITUA commented that it is important to work with other countries
outside of this process; specifically NASA stated that this "can be
accomplished through CITEL (the Inter-American Telecommunications
Commission) and other regional bodies, as well as through targeted
bi-laterals."[^87] USITUA stated that regional group meetings offer
ideal opportunities for the United States to meet with both leaders as
well as working level staff, and to demonstrate the United States'
interest in others views.[^88] USITUA noted that working with other
countries is an important initial step in building common proposals
within and across regions and it allows delegation leaders and their
staffs to meet one another. It also provides the United States an
opportunity to learn the other countries' views.[^89] The United States'
consistent engagement and leadership in the CITEL process, as well as
participation with other regional processes, was a central factor it its
many successes at WRC-2003.[^90] USITUA specifically encouraged NTIA to
engage at senior levels in important regional meetings addressing WRC
issues.[^91] USITUA also recommended that the private sector should be
considered for inclusion in U.S. delegations to regional preparation
meetings outside of the CITEL meetings.[^92]

NTIA also asked a question concerning the country outreach program and
whether it should be maintained between WRCs. NASA and USITUA both
answered that this program should not continue between WRCs. USITUA
argued that the program is impractical for the private sector. According
to NASA, "the value of the outreach program within the WRC itself is
debatable and costs the United States at least as much goodwill as it
generates."[^93] NASA stated that we need to think more about how to
implement some other activity that ensures good relations without
excessive complications.[^94] As a minimum, some measure of the
effectiveness of past outreach efforts should be assessed before
undertaking such an endeavor.[^95] According to NASA, targeted outreach
is likely to be far more productive than the general outreach that has
been conducted during WRC-2000 and WRC-03.[^96] If the program
continues, NASA recommended that the following actions will improve the
effectiveness of the process:

a)  Assign delegates country responsibilities in a more thoughtful
    manner based on working relationships with one or more individuals
    on a country delegation, and their knowledge of the country;

b)  Several experienced delegates need to exchange ideas and develop a
    more effective outreach program that could be implemented prior to
    the CPM and utilized until the conference;

c)  Once someone with country ties has been identified, retain that
    person as the U.S. Delegation's contact person for more than just
    one conference if possible;

d)  Develop a delegation message of the day or a list of issues for
    which the Delegation should solicit views; and

e)  Develop a list of questions concerning the views of other countries
    prior to the CPM.[^97]

Commenters had varying views on the integration of WRC outreach
activities with other international activities of State, the FCC and
NTIA. NASA emphatically advocated that WRC outreach activities should
not be integrated with other international activities.[^98] On the other
hand, USITUA suggested that the WRC outreach should be integrated with
other international activities and be a standing topic for discussion at
every bilateral or regional meeting with State, the FCC or NTIA.[^99]
The commenters agreed that the Delegation's consultations prior to
WRC-03 were very effective, but could be improved. NASA stated that the
consultations were not started in a timely manner and should be started
at the CPM and be continued from there.[^100] NASA also noted that the
consultations were effective due to the diligence of the Ambassador and
the team, but that the consultations were rushed.[^101] USITUA agreed
that the consultations "were very effective, building good
relationships, in part assisted by the fact that the late-appointed
Ambassador to WRC-03 was a known and respected figure in the
international telecommunications community, and the ITU."[^102] USITUA
suggested, however, that the Ambassador should be appointed
earlier.[^103]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

NTIA agrees with the commenters on the importance of consulting with
other countries and involving federal agency senior leadership in these
consultations. In this regard, NTIA believes that State, the FCC and
NTIA, should continue to work closely to conduct consultations with
other countries throughout the WRC cycle, with more detailed
consultations being possible once the United States has developed
preliminary views and conference goals/objectives. NTIA further
recommends that the three agencies continue to conduct consultations
upon completion of the U.S. proposals to obtain support for them as
early as possible prior to the WRC.

State plays a key role in ensuring the success of consultations with
other administrations and international outreach since the Secretary of
State exercises primary authority for the conduct of foreign policy with
respect to such telecommunications functions, including the
determination of U.S. positions and the conduct of U.S. participation in
negotiations with foreign government and international bodies.[^104]
NTIA is committed to working with State as it coordinates with other
agencies on these international issues.

NTIA recommends that State continue to work closely with the FCC and
NTIA to identify and meet with key countries, including CITEL countries,
on contentious issues early in the process. NTIA recommends conducting
detailed WRC consultations with other administrations throughout the
preparatory process. While face-to-face meetings with representatives of
other administrations in their countries convey a level of respect for
those administrations, video conferencing should also be used where
possible to expand the opportunities for dialog. We note that video
conference facilities are often available at U.S. embassies, and that
these facilities were successfully employed to conduct a bilateral
meeting with Brazil prior to WRC-03. More meetings of this type would be
useful and would conserve U.S. resources, as well as resources of other
countries.

Regional preparation has become an absolute requirement for ensuring
success at the WRC, because conferences increasingly highlight regional
proposals and views over individual administrations' views. The United
States should use the experience of WRC-03 to form the baseline for
future U.S. WRC preparation activities - timely engagement and
leadership in the regional processes yielded successful outcomes on U.S.
proposals. NTIA will continue to participate actively in regional
preparations for WRCs.

NTIA believes that it is also important to work with other countries
outside of the ITU study groups and the CPM. NTIA has in the past and
will continue to discuss WRC issues with foreign administrations
visiting NTIA. Commenters suggested that the country outreach program
should not be maintained between WRCs. However, database information on
country contacts should be maintained. NTIA agrees with the commenters
that the country outreach program that has been used at conferences
should not be actively pursued between conferences. The outreach program
at conferences relies heavily on private sector delegates. Private
sector representatives could not continue to officially represent the
United States outside conferences. However, federal employees should
continue to promote informal contacts that cultivate relationships that
were built during the conference, especially those with individuals who
do not participate in ITU-R study groups. NTIA recommends that all U.S.
participants continue to collect and share information on foreign
delegates among other U.S. players. This approach has proven effective
and draws upon the experiences of all. NTIA will create and maintain a
formal database for its WRC staff and will invite the federal agencies
to contribute to the database via the RCS. Further, NTIA believes
improvements can be made in the international outreach program to
increase its effectiveness and proposes State consider appointing
several experienced delegates to exchange ideas and develop a more
effective outreach program that could be put in place prior to the CPM
and carried through to the conference. State could also consider holding
monthly meetings or otherwise informing participants on country outreach
immediately after CPM-2 and designate official coordinators from NTIA
and the FCC by country and region. All outreach efforts would continue
to be coordinated by State to ensure consistency of message and to make
all outreach transparent.

**7. Forming the WRC Delegation**

> *Background*

The U.S. Delegation, under the leadership of an ambassador, represents
the United States at WRCs. The Delegation is comprised of U.S.
Government officials and representatives from U.S. industries. The
President appoints an ambassador to serve as head of the
Delegation.[^105] Approximately six months before a WRC, State,
including the Ambassador-designate if then known and in consultation
with the FCC and NTIA, prepares a list of individuals from the private
sector and government, to serve on the nominated U.S. Delegation.[^106]
Once the authority to negotiate on behalf of the United States is
granted, an Accredited Delegation is created.[^107]

Preparation for a WRC begins several years in advance. The U.S. WRC
Ambassador (Ambassador or Head of Delegation) cannot be appointed until
about five months before the WRC as the Ambassador can serve only about
six months including the WRC. The remainder of the U.S. Delegation is
not formed until six months or in most cases, less than six months prior
to a WRC commencing, although the identity of the delegation is known in
large measure as early as CPM-2, which generally occurs six months prior
to the WRC. In preparation for WRC-03, State initiated a \"core
delegation group\" to lead the preparatory activities until a U.S. Head
of Delegation was appointed. The core delegation group, a subset of the
U.S. Delegation, met regularly to discuss issues related to the WRC and
is comprised of the U.S. WRC Head of Delegation, the vice-chairs, agency
principals and representatives from State, the FCC, NTIA, NASA and DOD.
The group assisted in the development and implementation of U.S. goals
and objectives, developing U.S. policy positions, resolving conflicts
with U.S. proposals, and managing issues associated with forming the
Delegation. The core delegation also developed a conference structure
for the WRC and list of proposed international committee chairs to lead
the work of the conference. This group identified and attempted to
reconcile differences in positions and proposals on conference issues
and identified areas of divergence with other Regions and countries in
the hopes of resolving those differences in negotiations prior to the
WRC. The group created a list of U.S. spokespersons and committee chairs
so that these groups could begin meeting and carrying out the necessary
preparatory work before the delegation was formed.

Over the years, there has been significant debate surrounding the
formation of WRC delegations and the affect this process has on the
United States' ability to prepare for WRCs. In its Request for Comments,
NTIA sought public comment on a number of areas concerning the
continuity in leadership between WRC conferences, the formation of the
core delegation group, vice-chairs, and principals' groups and how they
could be better used to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the
U.S. preparations. NTIA also sought comments on the formation of and
associated timelines for the nominated and accredited delegation and how
this affects the timely development and approval of final positions,
strategy and fallback positions. Comments were also requested regarding
the appointment, timeframe and the role of the Ambassador, and how
effective U.S. appointed political representatives are in negotiations
with other ITU members. NTIA also requested comments on the importance
of bringing the Ambassador on board in some capacity prior to the second
session to CPM-2, which occurs about six months prior to the start of
the WRC, where administrations agree on final reports which are used as
the technical basis during WRC discussions.

> *Comments*

The commenters generally agreed that there is a lack of continuity in U.
S. leadership between WRC conferences at the senior level. According to
the USITUA, this lack of continuity creates a hurdle for the United
States to achieve its WRC objectives and even though the United States
has been able to overcome these discontinuities, it recommended that
State have a permanent (Senior Executive Service level) senior
vice-chair tasked to ensure continuing relationships in the WRC interims
and through the regional groups meetings.[^108] Winstar stated that the
Ambassador is always a political appointee for a single conference, has
no previous knowledge of spectrum related issues, and often does not
have opportunities to develop relationships and recognition as many
other countries representatives. Winstar recommended instead that the
Ambassador be a known United States expert, or that an expanded office
of the Ambassador be developed to retain historic knowledge. In both
instances, Winstar advocated that the Ambassador or the senior staff
should be appointed for multiple conferences.[^109] NASA added that
designating a senior civil servant as deputy head of the U.S. Delegation
from within an Office of Spectrum Policy in the Executive Office of the
President would help address the lack of continuity. This person's term
should be for as long as he or she serves in that capacity. NASA
acknowledged that this person may be a political appointee and
therefore, long-term leadership continuity might not be
guaranteed.[^110]

With respect to when the core delegation, vice-chair and principals
groups should be formed, the commenters suggested that it was important
for that to be done sooner rather than later. NASA commented that the
core delegation group should be formed immediately following the
penultimate CITEL PCCII meeting, but no less than three months prior to
the CPM-2.[^111] NASA also advocated that "nominal vice-chairs" are not
needed because each designated delegate (spokesperson, group chair, et
al.) should have a defined role or they should not be included in the
Delegation.[^112] USITUA agreed with early formation (prior to the
CPM-2) and asserted that spokespersons should be included in the core
delegation in order to provide an opportunity for team building and the
development of substantive expertise on assigned agenda items.[^113]
USITUA supported consideration of a private industry representative
liaison to that core delegation - the chair or vice-chair of the
WAC.[^114] Winstar also agreed with the early formation and noted that
the core delegation only represents the United States Government and
that the private sector should be brought into this group.[^115]

The commenters differed on whether or not the Nominated Delegation is
formed early enough in the process to develop and approve final
positions in a timely manner. NASA argued that the Delegation nomination
is accomplished in good time however; the Delegation accreditation
process is not timely or transparent.[^116] Winstar and USITUA both
agreed that the Nominated Delegation is not formed early enough and
should be formed prior to CPM-2.[^117]

NTIA asked a similar question regarding the formation of the Accredited
Delegation and the commenters stated that the Accredited Delegation is
not formed early enough to develop and approve United States positions,
strategy, and fallback positions. USITUA suggested that the Accredited
Delegation be in place no later than approximately four months prior to
the conference, to consider the issues that need to be addressed, such
as confidentiality.[^118] NASA stated that the delegation accreditation
process is not transparent or timely, and the lack of accreditation
should not be used to prevent interested parties from participating in
the development of strategy and fallback positions.[^119] Winstar
commented that positions and strategies can be more thoughtfully
developed if the Accredited Delegation were formed earlier because under
the current system those decisions are made at the very end of the
process where everything is rushed.[^120]

USITUA and Winstar agreed that delegation assignments should be made and
spokespersons identified as early as possible. According to USITUA, this
is important because early identification of such persons helps with
developing, managing and articulating their issues, and allows important
team building with interested U.S. parties.[^121] NASA was more specific
in establishing a timeframe. NASA asserted that spokespersons should be
identified about five months prior to the WRC, noting that WRC
spokespersons do not need to be the same as CPM-2 spokespersons.[^122]

With respect to improving the role of and the process for appointing the
Ambassador, NASA commented that the process works, but prior to being
appointed, the nominee should be announced at least three months prior
to the CPM-2 as Head of Delegation. Such an announcement would allow the
Ambassador to work alongside the Coordinator for CIP (State) to gain an
understanding of the issues that will be discussed at WRC.[^123] USITUA
suggested that a one-year term starting four to six months prior to the
CPM-2 would enable the individual to be educated on the issues,
politics, regional bodies, and institution to be able to meaningfully
attend the CPM in part or in whole.[^124] USITUA also noted that the
Ambassador's role would be enhanced by ensuring adequate funds are
available for WRC outreach and travel activities that are critical to
obtain support for United States objectives at the WRC.[^125] WRC-2000
Ambassador, Gail Schoettler, recommended that the WRC-2003 Head of
Delegation attend the preparatory conferences, including the
Plenipotentiary Conference, the CPM-2 and regional meetings, since
likely fall-out from these meetings would significantly impact the
WRC-03 deliberations.[^126] "Being familiar with the dynamics of these
conferences and with the key delegates is a great advantage," stated
Ambassador Schoettler.[^127] All this will require having that person on
board in some capacity 10 to 12 months in advance of WRC-03.[^128] The
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) issued a report in
2003 (CSIS Report) which states that the most important international
spectrum negotiations, the WRCs, are conducted for the United States by
a temporary ambassador appointed shortly before a WRC begins.[^129] This
position is temporary and lasts only six months to avoid the need for
Senate confirmation.[^130] The CSIS Report recommended that the United
States reinforce its negotiating effort by placing the preparations of
spectrum negotiations under White House purview and by the early
appointment and confirmation of the Ambassador.[^131]

NTIA also asked a question regarding the United States' negotiating
strength using appointed political representatives working with career
spectrum managers and ITU experts from other countries. NASA commented
that the "United States' negotiating strength is enhanced by the
appointed political representative. The political clout available to the
appointed political representative can prove invaluable in resolving
difficult issues."[^132] Winstar asserted that "the United States
negotiating strength is most certainly hindered by the use of an
appointed political appointee that inherits an office that is not
provided with the appropriate staff and resources."[^133] USITUA
suggested that the United States' negotiating strength may be more
hindered than improved if there is not adequate time to educate the
Ambassador sufficiently for the person to develop a satisfactory comfort
level on the controversial issues. However, if the Ambassador has
pre-existing knowledge of an issue or has enough time to gain a firm
understanding of the issue, then the presence of a political ambassador
is useful.[^134]

NTIA wanted to know whether it is important to bring the Ambassador on
board in some capacity prior to the CPM-2, considering that at the CPM,
administrations agree on the technical report for the WRC. NTIA asked
when the Ambassador's appointment should be made effective. The
commenters agreed that it is important to bring the Head of Delegation
on board in some capacity prior to the CPM-2. NASA advocated that
identifying the individual ahead of time as Head of Delegation is
essential so that this person can gain a necessary understanding of all
of the issues that affect United States interests.[^135] Winstar
recommended that the Ambassador be identified and appointed at least
three months prior to the CPM-2 so the person can become knowledgeable
on the issues. Winstar also suggested that the Ambassador be identified,
if not appointed, at least one year prior to a WRC.[^136] USITUA
asserted that the Ambassador should be appointed one year prior to the
WRC and that a statutory exemption may be appropriate for this position.
As an alternative, USITUA argued that the Ambassador could be an
appointee or consultant in the Department of State so that there is
expertise and travel budget available to support the activities of the
Ambassador-to-be.[^137]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

The U.S. approach to leadership of WRC delegations contrasts with most
other countries that have the same senior administrators available to
negotiate on behalf of their country from one WRC to the next. The
consistency in leadership in foreign delegations allows for these
individuals to develop personal relationships with their counterparts,
which helps in resolving differences or disputes during WRCs. Providing
national leadership during the several years of critical preparatory
work prior to a WRC is extremely important. The United States' current
system does not allow for a continuing leader from one WRC to the next,
although it does provide for an ongoing cadre of senior career
professional staff drawn from the Department of State, NTIA, the FCC and
other agencies to support of the WRC Ambassador. One commenter
recommended that the Department of State appoint an interim or a
permanent head of delegation for WRCs to undertake oversight of the WRC
preparatory process.[^138] Yet, given the scope of telecommunications
issues involved and the limited organizational steps that can be taken
prior to the appointment of the Head of Delegation, NTIA does not
believe that this approach would be very useful in practice.
Furthermore, the U.S. preparatory process and ultimately the Delegation
are built on career government professionals as mentioned above together
with private sector participants. These individuals provide tremendous
continuity and personal relationships. The present approach to selecting
the Head of Delegation does carry some risk that the individual will not
be fully prepared to meet the challenges of representing the United
States at a WRC. NTIA believes that an appointed Head of Delegation with
ambassadorial rank is the right approach for the United States. A
well-developed and functioning interagency process and an ambassador
that "hits-the-ground-running" have proven to be a successful substitute
for a permanent head of delegation. For instance, the last two U.S.
Heads of the Delegation worked informally for several months to
familiarize themselves with conference issues and other administrations'
delegations prior to being formally appointed. This greatly increased
their knowledge and effectiveness, familiarizing them with the issues
and their foreign counterparts in advance of their appointment.

Some commenters state that the core delegation should be formed early
and indicate a desire for private sector involvement in the core
delegation. One recommendation was to appoint a private industry
representative as a liaison to the core delegation, such as the chair
and vice-chair of the FCC WAC.[^139] This idea presents legal challenges
as the core delegation consists entirely of government employees. NTIA
agrees with NASA's comments and encourages State to continue leading the
core delegation group, noting that State has begun high-level
consultations four months prior to the CPM-2.[^140] The work of the core
delegation should be done in a more transparent way so that likely WRC
participants have input into its functioning. The core delegation should
include spokespersons and other federal agencies in

order to provide an opportunity for team building and development of
substantive expertise on assigned agenda items.

NTIA notes that the WRC-03 Delegation operated only three months prior
to the start of the WRC. This provided insufficient time for many
important delegation activities to take place, such as preparing
positions and strategies. The Nominated Delegation can be created at any
time and it could be used more effectively to bring all relevant points
of view to government preparations earlier than waiting for the
Nominated Delegation to be accredited. In light of the many activities
that must be completed prior to the WRC by the Delegation, along with
earlier appointment of the Head of Delegation, NTIA suggests that either
the Accredited Delegation be finalized four to six[^141] months prior to
the WRC or, as an alternative, the Nominated Delegation be granted
authority by State to at least start developing U.S. strategies and
fallback positions until the Delegation is accredited. Another
suggestion from a commenter is to form the Nominated Delegation one
month prior to the CPM-2. NTIA agrees with this approach.[^142] State
however, has indicated that Federal Advisory Committee Act provisions
apply to all meetings involving private sector participants prior to the
formation of an Accredited Delegation. Documents which must by their
nature be private within the delegation - for example, documents
spelling out possible fallback positions and strategies - cannot be
dealt with in the open. The existing practice of creating factual
documents, to which fallbacks and strategies are later added by the
Accredited Delegation once foreign views are more fully known, State
indicates, has proven effective.

Approving the Accredited Delegation involves a number of steps that
typically cannot occur until close to the start of the WRC. In most
cases, the accredited delegates have been included in the list of
nominated delegates. Therefore, as recommended previously, the Nominated
Delegation can begin to accomplish some of the functions of the
Accredited Delegation, but not the development of inherently private
matters such as fallbacks and strategies. NASA stated that the
Delegation accreditation process is not transparent or timely.[^143] One
comment suggested that the Accredited Delegation be in place no later
than approximately four months prior the conference.[^144] NTIA agrees
with this approach and further suggests four to six months prior to the
conference. U.S. WRC delegates have expressed uncertainty about the
size, composition and accreditation process of the WRC delegations.
State provided guidelines for selecting individuals to serve on WRC
delegations and the overall size of the delegation to many potential
U.S. delegates prior to WRC-03. NTIA recommends to State that it
continue to provide potential WRC delegates a guidance document,
including an explanation of the accreditation process, approximately one
year before the conference.

The core delegation, under the leadership of State, should continue to
identify spokespersons early, so they can develop the technical
expertise, public speaking experience, and knowledge-base to effectively
manage the issues that the United States is promoting. WRC vice-

chairs should therefore, make delegation assignments and officially
identify spokespersons three months prior to the CPM-2.

Early designation of the Ambassador and the Delegation will provide
stability and strong leadership in representing the interests of the
United States. The current six-month tenure of the Ambassador does not
allow enough time for the Ambassadors to develop sound working
relationships with other country representatives or complete the
necessary delegation activities for which they are responsible. Further,
the effectiveness of the United States Delegation can be enhanced by
ensuring that the appointees have a telecommunications background,
preferably with ITU experience. These individuals typically already have
many contacts and informal relationships that enable them to excel in
negotiations with other countries. If possible, a position should be
found for the Ambassador even earlier that enables the
Ambassador-designate to learn about spectrum management and to establish
relationships with the domestic and international spectrum players in
government and industry.[^145] The CSIS Report examined the appointment
of the Ambassador in 2003 and recommended merging the ambassador
positions for the WRC and State's Communications and Information Policy
(CIP) group into one position, as a political appointee.[^146] NTIA
believes that it is not feasible for the head of CIP to simultaneously
serve as the Head of Delegation due to time constraints and other major
responsibilities inherent in this CIP position. The CSIS Report
recommended that the President appoint the Ambassador at least one year
before the start of the WRC.[^147] The early appointment of a long-term
ambassador by the President, according to the CSIS Report, would give
the United States an effective international presence to achieve its
spectrum goals.[^148]

The head of the U.S. Delegation with a personal rank of ambassador can
be advantageous to the United States. An appointed ambassador carries
the necessary prestige and influence to bring the United States
Delegation together and represent the United States' interests at the
WRC. The United States' negotiating strength is enhanced by the use of
an appointed political representative working with career spectrum
managers and ITU experts from other countries. The political "clout"
available to the appointed political representative can prove invaluable
in resolving difficult issues during a WRC.

NTIA believes it is important to have the U.S. WRC Head of Delegation
and the Delegation in place earlier than is possible under the current
statutory limitation that temporary ambassadors appointed without Senate
advice and consent may only serve for six months. [^149] NTIA believes
that a longer-serving Ambassador and Head of Delegation will ultimately
prove to be more effective. This would require the requisite
inter-agency coordination, action by the Congress and approval by the
President. Based on past experience and the comments received, NTIA
believes that it is important to bring the Ambassador on board in some
capacity prior to the CPM-2, since administrations meet at the CPM to
agree on the technical studies for the WRC. NTIA believes that the
Ambassador can use the experience at CPM-2 to gain a necessary

understanding of all of the issues that affect United States interests,
as one commenter suggested.[^150]

**8. Staffing and Budgeting WRC Activities**

> *Background*

The GAO Report noted staffing concerns in NTIA and the federal
agencies.[^151] In the President's 2006 budget proposals, the
Administration has recognized the need for greater resources to maintain
the U.S. international spectrum activities. A key part of this package
is staffing increases for WRC-related functions. NTIA is planning to
provide on-going funding for staff-level outreach activities. The
Department of State and NTIA have provided information and communication
resources for WRC staff use in Geneva for ITU-R meetings and
conferences.

NTIA requested comments regarding the need to provide the Ambassador
with an identified operational budget and how to best use
representational funds to conduct outreach efforts. NTIA further sought
input on what facilities are critical to the functioning of the
Delegation and the Ambassador at the conference site.

Recognizing that agencies and companies send representatives to the
Delegation to participate in debates, negotiations, and outreach
efforts, NTIA requested information on how the U.S. Delegation could
support participation in the WRC editorial committee. The editorial
committee is a standing committee of the WRC that prepares the final
treaty text for the international Radio Regulations. This committee
conducts its work in French as the authentic language, together with the
other working languages of the Union. The spokespersons and interested
government and industry participants should review editorial committee
documents and assist the editorial committee representatives in ensuring
the correct translations are made based on agreed upon text.

Over the years, there has been concern among WRC participants (federal
and non-federal) regarding staffing issues.[^152] NTIA sought comments
on whether NTIA and the federal agencies have sufficient staff with
appropriate expertise to support spectrum management activities in the
WRC preparation process.

> *Comments*

Commenters agreed that it is necessary to provide the Ambassador with an
operational budget to ensure the Ambassador and the delegation staff can
complete their missions. USITUA asserted that an operational budget is
necessary and critical for the Ambassador and that the budget should be
available immediately upon appointment (if not upon nomination or some
other designated capacity) so the Ambassador can effectively perform the
duties of the position.[^153]

USITUA also recommended that Congress earmark monies for WRC accounts
for all three agencies (e.g., State, the FCC and NTIA).[^154] NASA
commented that representational funds should not be the only source of
funding for the Ambassador but an operational budget must also be made
available within an Office of Spectrum Policy in the Executive Office of
the President and/or the Department of State.[^155] Winstar agreed that
an operational budget is necessary and recommended that representational
funds be carefully used in promoting the U.S. position once it has been
set however, representational funds should not "exceed the funding
provided by the federal government, nor must they be used to place our
government officials in a position whereby their independence is open to
question."[^156]

In this regard, in order to adequately budget for WRC activities NTIA
sought the public's comment on what facilities are critical to the
functioning of the Delegation and Ambassador at the WRC location.
According to NASA, meeting rooms (large and small), computer resources
and secure facilities are critical resources needed by the Ambassador
and the Delegation. For effective coordination during the WRC, NASA also
commented that "wireless networks, mobile phones and a delegation
website are crucial."[^157] USITUA asserted that facilities comparable
to those administered by State at WRC-03 are representative of the
requirements of the Delegation and the Ambassador, and should be
arranged as far in advance as possible.[^158] USITUA also commented that
for the United States to be successful at the WRCs, the Ambassador
should have a separate meeting area for private meetings. There should
also be common delegation facilities to foster better coordination on
issues, and government agency staff should be provided with wireless
devices (e.g., cell phones and laptops).[^159]

Furthermore, USITUA recommended that one government official should be
designated and responsible for coordinating the efforts of the United
States on the editorial committee. USITUA also added that given the
perennial importance of the committee, agencies should seek to hire or
train individuals in French and/or Spanish. According to USITUA, "the
scarcity of Government employees with linguistic capabilities has been a
long-standing weakness of U.S. delegations to ITU treaty conference and
should be remedied."[^160] NASA suggested that small interest groups
within the U.S. Delegation work closely with "a small number of
multi-lingual delegates" to perform the duties of the editorial
committee.[^161]

WRC participants (federal and non-federal) have expressed concern over
staffing issues. USITUA advocated that as a general matter, NTIA and the
federal agencies do not have sufficient staff with appropriate expertise
to support spectrum management activities in the WRC preparation
process.[^162] There is not enough training to account for, and replace,
retiring expertise, according to USITUA, and because the WRC agenda is
diverse and multifaceted, it is difficult to adequately cover some of
the issues.[^163] NASA suggested that staffing varies from agency to
agency and that expertise, more often than numbers, is essential.[^164]
NASA asserted that NTIA is reasonably staffed, but certainly not to
excess.[^165] Winstar commented that it would appear the agencies
typically have staff with appropriate expertise in the areas in which
Winstar is primarily concerned.[^166] Winstar recommended an expanded
U.S. Government presence when impasses occur or key issues require
escalated resources.[^167] USITUA commented that "it is critical for the
agencies to begin to develop additional staff expertise in the
regulatory and procedural aspects of a conference; while there is
recognized expertise; it is concentrated in a limited number of
staff."[^168] Winstar added that the U.S. Government should consider
planning to increase staffing.[^169]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

To ensure the Ambassador and the delegation staff can complete their
missions; it is necessary that the Department of State adequately fund
WRC activities. NTIA believes that the federal agencies should budget
for and provide representational funds for use in promoting the U.S.
positions. NTIA recommends that State should continue to provide
adequate resources for WRC activities (staff, office facilities, travel
funds for consultations with other administrations, delegation training
and representational funds). NTIA recommends that State continue to
coordinate with the FCC, NTIA and the federal agencies on developing the
budget.

Specific facilities and equipment are critical to the functioning of the
Delegation and the Ambassador at the conference site. NTIA agrees with
the comments presented above and recommends that State provide the
Ambassador and the Delegation with the appropriate facilities and
service devices to perform their mission. Facilities similar to those
provided at WRCs 2000 and 2003 should serve as the basis for planning.
One concern was that the U.S. participants should have the proper
communications equipment available to them during these conferences.
NTIA will ensure that its spokespersons are provided with cell phones,
laptop computers and appropriate hardware (e.g. RLAN card) and software
at the WRC and recommends that State, the FCC and other federal agencies
fully support their respective WRC delegates.

Representatives from the Delegation should provide support to the
editorial committee, as this is one of many obligations of serving on
the Delegation. However, NTIA recognizes that delegates with language
skills are expected by their sponsors to participate in all activity
related to their issues. The hours that the editorial committee works
are often long and late, and at times the committee work continues while
other work has ceased. Participants in the editorial committee may find
themselves, because of their language skills, covering other delegates'
issues while those other delegates are at that time serving in other
conference committees. Therefore, the process of coordinating these
delegates who have other time commitments becomes very complex. NTIA
recommends that State provide a government employee to serve as both a
spokesperson and as the U.S. Delegation coordinator for participation on
the editorial committee.

The U.S. Government has a scarcity of employees with linguistic
capabilities on U.S. WRC delegations. While complying with all staffing
level review processes, NTIA, along with the FCC, State and the federal
agencies, should plan for additional staff and hire employees, as
appropriate, who are fluent in French, Spanish and other languages used
in the editorial committee. The agencies could also train existing
employees in conversational French, Spanish and other languages.
However, because these delegates need to focus on negotiations and
outreach this would not solve the problem of providing U.S. Government
personnel with language expertise to assist in the editorial committee.
Consistent with all applicable hiring and staffing procedures, the U.S.
Government could also hire temporary personnel fluent in one or more of
these languages during the period of the CPM and WRC to assist in the
editorial committee. Temporary personnel fluent with respect to a
conversational language may be of little benefit because ITU technical
terminology is unlikely to be known without the person having had
previous ITU experience.

The WRC preparation process works best with clearly defined but flexible
roles and activities for staff over the duration of the WRC preparation
process. With few exceptions full-time government employees must be
available for the entire preparatory period in order to effectively
serve as issue coordinators and spokespersons. NTIA as well as State,
the FCC and other federal agencies should plan to increase staffing,
again while complying with all staffing level review processes, in order
to commit sufficient resources to the ITU and WRC processes. As one
option, NTIA recommends consideration of part-time, limited duration or
contract staff for certain functions to supplement full-time government
staff. Those functions can include participation in the WRC editorial
committee, translation and assistance with bilateral consultations, and
direct administrative and technical support to WRC staff.

There is currently only limited government staff with expertise in
regulatory and procedural matters which appear in the Radio Regulations
and are subject to change by conferences. NTIA recommends that all
agencies develop additional staff expertise in the regulatory and
procedural aspects of the Radio Regulations as well as the general rules
of conferences by identifying qualified individuals and through specific
training.

**9. Training**

> *Background*

The U.S. Delegation to WRC-03 conducted the first delegation training
day. This event was designed to bring up to a common threshold of
experience for all of the U.S. delegates, many of whom were new to WRCs.
The training covered rules of procedure for conduct of WRCs, microphone
etiquette, negotiation strategy and customs and courtesies. The training
day also served as a "team building" exercise, reviewing all the agenda
items and associated U.S. positions, so that all delegates had some
level of familiarity. It also provided a first opportunity for the
Delegation as a whole to identify itself as a unit.

Prior to WRC-03, NTIA developed preparatory training for federal
employees interested in participating in ITU-R or WRC activities. The
training provides a fundamental background in the ITU with a focus on
the ITU-R as well as regional preparatory bodies and trains individuals
to prepare for, and participate in meetings of these groups. NTIA will
explore further development and expansion of this program. For many
years, NTIA has offered formal spectrum management training for federal
government employees and their contractor support. This training
includes classes on international aspects of spectrum management and
international/United States WRC preparatory processes. State's Foreign
Service Institute offers multi-lateral diplomacy and negotiations
training, which is open to all U.S. Government employees. NTIA has begun
sending their WRC personnel to this training.

NTIA requested comments on the availability of trained and qualified
federal government spokespersons and issue coordinators throughout the
WRC preparatory process and during the WRC. NTIA requested input on the
need for training programs for spokespersons and delegates and
preparatory training for general participation in ITU-R study groups.
NTIA also requested comments on maintaining a cadre of experienced
personnel in the federal government in order for them to assume
leadership and spokesperson roles at future WRCs.

> *Comments*

With respect to the question regarding whether trained and qualified
government spokespersons are available throughout the WRC preparatory
process and during the WRC, NASA noted that they generally are
available.[^170] However, USITUA asserted that the coordinators and
spokespersons are qualified, but are not provided meaningful training to
prepare for their responsibilities.[^171]

Regarding the need for training programs for U.S. spokesperson, USITUA
advocated that training programs, consisting of public speaking and
international negotiations, should be mandatory for spokespersons and
delegates. USITUA mentioned the usefulness of the U.S. delegation
training day exercise and urges its continuance. USITUA also recommended
that language training should be available to career WRC staff.[^172]
NASA commented that orientation and mentorship is helpful for new
delegation participants, but experience is the best guide. However, NASA
argued that mandatory training for experienced delegates is probably
unnecessary.[^173]

NASA commented that preparatory training for general participation in
ITU-R study groups in support of WRC activities is not necessary because
of the difficulties in providing training appropriate to the level of
experience of everyone on the Delegation. However, NASA recommended that
State publish guidelines/expectations for delegate participation at such
meetings and consider publishing web-based training materials for those
interested in the process.[^174] USITUA noted that preparatory training
for general participation in the ITU-R study groups is necessary. USITUA
stated that "on the job training is critical to developing the fluency
on the issue that many of our foreign counterparts have. Therefore,
staff should be sent to study group meetings along with experienced
staff to benefit from mentoring and training."[^175]

NTIA also sought public comment on steps that should be taken to
maintain experienced government spokespersons and leaders at WRCs. NASA
comments that there is a general need for the federal government to
retain experienced spectrum management personnel because of the limited
number of experienced personnel in this particular field who often
switch employers.[^176] USITUA commented "that the U.S. Government
should find ways to recognize the importance of these WRC roles."[^177]

> *Conclusion and Recommendations*

Retaining a well-trained and educated cadre of WRC spokespersons and
issue coordinators is important for the United States to continue to
have the success it has had during WRCs. However, training by itself is
typically insufficient to account for and replace, retiring expertise.
NTIA recommends that federal agencies hire trained and experienced
personnel to the maximum extent possible and pursue the available
training described above, coupled with on-the-job training in those
instances where experienced personnel are not available. On-the-job
training is a key component to the success of U.S. preparations for and
performance at conferences. NTIA recommends that agencies send new
personnel to the ITU, regional and other meetings with experienced
personnel to benefit from on-site mentoring and training. This is
critical to developing the fluency on issues that many of our foreign
counterparts have.

As pointed out in the comments, there are too few experienced spectrum
management personnel who can perform the leadership roles necessary to
help the U.S. Delegation. Therefore, NTIA recommends agencies consider
increasing in-grade levels for WRC staff, quality step increases and
other recognition as appropriate. NTIA recognizes the importance of its
personnel who are responsible for many technical, operational,
procedural and regulatory aspects of ITU-R conference and meeting
preparations and will be considering these recommendations.

**10. WRC Domestic Implementation Process**

> *Background*

The National Table of Frequency Allocations is comprised of the U.S.
Government Table of Frequency Allocations and the FCC Table of Frequency
Allocations and allows for specific spectrum to be used exclusively by
the U.S. Government, exclusively by the private sector only, or on a
shared basis.[^178] Therefore, any changes adopted by a WRC could
directly impact upon spectrum use for the U.S. Government and commercial
entities. On behalf of the executive branch agencies, NTIA, through the
IRAC process, has overall responsibility to review the WRC Final Acts,
determine the effects on the federal agencies, and to decide what
provisions should be implemented domestically. NTIA sends its proposals
to the FCC recommending revisions to the National Table of Frequency
Allocations. The FCC publishes a notice or notices of proposed
rulemaking covering the items in the WRC Final Acts. The result of this
process is a new national table implementing the agreed government and
non-government provisions from the WRC. While either agency can be the
first to propose a specific implementation of a WRC outcome, all changes
to the allocation table must go through an FCC rulemaking. Therefore,
FCC priorities and schedules have served as the process through which
all implementation must proceed.

Over the years, the United States has had difficulty implementing
domestically, in a timely manner, all WRC decisions. To address this
issue effectively, NTIA requested comments on what could be done to
improve the implementation process. The GAO Report noted that federal
agencies are concerned that WRC allocation decisions of primary interest
to the federal government often go without action.[^179] NTIA sought
comments on how to improve the process to ensure equal treatment of both
government and private sector interests. NTIA also requested comments
regarding whether the FCC and NTIA should develop a plan and schedule to
complete rulemaking for each WRC agenda item.

> *Comments*

NASA commented that all WRC decisions should be considered by NTIA and
the FCC in a timely manner. In the past, WRC decisions that only
affected or benefited the federal government were not implemented in a
timely manner, NASA stated, sometimes being delayed as long as eight or
more years. NASA noted that the process laid out following WRC-2003 will
be a major improvement if it is completed as scheduled.[^180] According
to USITUA, the implementation process has been uneven in the past where
implementation of WRC items often languished in the aftermath of the
WRCs.[^181] However, USITUA commented that significant steps have been
taken by NTIA and the FCC to improve this process and commended both
agencies for having taken "pro-active steps in establishing a clear and
transparent timeline for implementation of WRC-03 decisions and the
outstanding ones from prior conferences."[^182]

The GAO Report noted that the federal agencies are concerned that WRC
allocation decisions of primary interest to the federal government go
without action.[^183] NTIA sought the public's comment on how to improve
the process and ensure all interests are treated fairly. NASA commented
that the process can be improved by NTIA and FCC working together on the
WRC implementation schedule. NASA also noted that Office of Spectrum
Policy oversight would ensure timely implementation of results.[^184]
USITUA stated that there should be no distinction between government and
private sector when implementing WRC items are

concerned because industries are dependent on opportunities derived from
implementation of both. USITUA also commented that timely implementation
of both is critical and that NTIA and the FCC should establish a
consensus timeline to eliminate the past problems.[^185]

The commenters agreed that the FCC and NTIA should develop a plan and
schedule to complete rulemaking for each WRC agenda item. NASA
recommended that NTIA and the FCC should jointly develop a plan with a
suitable schedule and should complete rulemakings within one year
following the conclusion of the WRC for all WRC agenda items.[^186]
USIIUA suggested that a timeline be announced within three to six months
of the close of the WRC, with complete implementation within 18-24
months.[^187] According to Winstar, the timing for rulemakings depends
on the priority given them by NTIA and the FCC and that industry
participation at conferences is motivated both by international and
domestic considerations with the expectation that domestic rulemaking
will take place and will take into account, without being bound by, the
results of the conferences.[^188] NYS and FACS commented that "the U.S.
team should be applauded for its preparation and achievement at the
recent WRC-03 and encouraged to advance the public interest by swiftly
implementing all of the WRC-03 allocations."[^189] NYS and FACS argued
against the FCC promulgating a notice and comment rulemaking for each
WRC agenda item because this will further delay WRC implementation and
will have "negative consequences for U.S. competitiveness." However,
they added that these rulemakings should be initiated only "where an
insufficient record exists or if the allocation impacts an unknown
number of potential providers in an undeveloped industry."[^190]

> *Conclusion and Recommendations*

A concerted effort between NTIA and the FCC at senior management levels
improved the implementation of the WRC Final Acts. Most items from past
conferences have now been completed in FCC rulemakings. NTIA and the FCC
have agreed to a joint plan for implementing the WRC-03 Final Acts, in
fact, the FCC has already conducted rulemakings on some of the agenda
items. With the assistance of the IRAC, NTIA has developed proposals for
implementing the WRC-03 Final Acts as they relate to outstanding items,
and has forwarded the recommendations for national implementation to the
FCC. The FCC, in turn, has adopted and released an omnibus rulemaking
implementing the Final Acts of WRC-03.

NTIA will continue to work with the FCC to publish a joint plan and
schedule to complete rulemakings for each WRC agenda item within six
months of WRC completion. NTIA and the FCC have taken a pro-active step
in establishing a clear and transparent timeline for implementation of
WRC-03 decisions including outstanding WRC agenda items from prior
conferences. NTIA recommends that this approach be formalized.

**11. General Areas/Other WRC Issues**

> *Background*

NTIA, working with State and the FCC, has already addressed a number of
the past deficiencies that could place United States' interests at risk
at WRCs. For example, the United States developed positions on key WRC
issues in preparation for WRC-03, with no outstanding issues. However,
in retrospect, the United States could have benefited further by
developing many of these positions earlier in the preparatory process.
CITEL supported over 90 percent of United States proposals prior to the
WRC. The United States successfully covered the issues at these WRCs
with the appropriate experts. NTIA, working with State and the FCC, also
identified these experts early in the preparations. NTIA sought comments
on the effectiveness of U.S. preparations for WRCs.

Until recently, each WRC has proposed longer and more involved agendas
than the preceding WRC. For WRC-03, the agenda contained 48 identified
items. These items touched on almost all radio services and frequency
bands. Bringing these disparate issues to resolution requires a large
number of experienced government experts. For instance, WRC agendas
include not only modifications to the regulations, but studies and other
items that are unnecessary for treatment by a treaty conference. The
cumulative effect has resulted in increased costs to the U.S.
Government, the private sector, the ITU, and other member states. The
longer agendas have also complicated the U.S. preparatory process and
increased the timeframe to implement WRC outcomes.

The proposals for the next conference agenda are often the last to be
developed within the U.S. preparatory process. At WRC-2000, the United
States did not submit its proposals for future conferences until after
the conference started. CITEL also considers future agenda items only at
its final preparatory meeting. To better understand how to reduce the
number of unnecessary WRC agenda items, NTIA requested comments on the
frequency of WRCs and limiting WRC agendas.

The functions of WRCs within the ITU are directed by the ITU's
Plenipotentiary Conferences that are held every four years. ITU
Plenipotentiary Conferences establish overall ITU policies and funding.
Proposals were submitted to the 2002 International Telecommunication
Union Plenipotentiary Conference (held in Marrakesh, Morocco) by a
number of administrations proposing significant changes in the
organizational structure of the ITU, including changes in the ITU treaty
development process that could affect the role and functions of WRC's.
The decision reached at Marrakesh relative to these proposals was to
task the ITU Council to develop specific proposals for consideration at
the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference.

> *Comments*

WRC-03 broke all past precedents in terms of the scope of the agenda.
Its 48 separate agenda items represented roughly a doubling of the
agenda's size from the WRC-2000. USITUA suggested that the WRCs should
occur often enough to meet the needs of both U.S. Government and
industry, while allowing sufficient time to perform the necessary
technical work to support the agenda items.[^191] Winstar suggested that
WRCs should occur at regular intervals with limited agendas and that the
duration of the conference should be no more than three weeks.[^192]
NASA stated that the period between successive WRCs should be no less
than three years and no more than five years.[^193] NASA argued that
"\[t\]his ensures that there may be sufficient time to perform the
necessary technical work to support the agenda items while at the same
time keeping the WRCs timely and relevant."[^194] According to NASA,
"WRC Agendas should be limited to those items that have a realistic
chance of resolution by the next conference."[^195]

> *Conclusions and Recommendations*

NTIA believes that the United States should work in the WRC preparation
process to ensure that: a) the period between successive WRCs is between
three to four years, allowing sufficient time to perform the necessary
technical work to support the agenda items, b) the conference should be
no more than four weeks in duration as a goal and c) WRC agendas should
be limited to those items that have a realistic chance of resolution by
the next conference. The United States will also need to participate
actively in policy-making activities of the ITU directed toward
improving the ITU treaty development process, especially those
activities affecting the role and functions of future WRCs.

The United States should place more emphasis on preparation of proposals
and delegation positions regarding future conference agenda items to
improve our preparatory process. The three lead agencies in WRC
preparations, State, the FCC and NTIA, should develop a more consistent
approach regarding United States input for future WRC agenda items and
follow-on support during the current WRC cycle. For example, if the
United States contributes a proposal for a future agenda item, the three
lead agencies should ensure that the United States position supports
that agenda item throughout the following WRC cycle. These agencies
should institute a policy to ensure that future conference agendas are
an integral part of the preparatory process and associated proposals are
finalized to the extent possible in the same time frame as other United
States proposals, recognizing that proposals for future WRC agendas
depend upon what the current WRC accomplishes. That often is not clear
until the WRC is well under way, and of course can not be known prior to
the WRC's commencement. Clear guidelines must be set for what kind,
number and type of agenda items are to be considered for proposals.
Guidelines that the United States has already presented in the ITU are:

a)  an approach other than WRC is the best way to address issues not of
    a worldwide character;

b)  limit WRC's scope to allocations, allotments or assignments of a
    worldwide character and regulatory aspects necessary to implement an
    allocation, allotment or assignment;

c)  WRCs should not deal with issues which either have not yet been
    studied or the studies have not yet reached the maturity of
    requiring an allocation, allotment or assignment by the time of the
    WRC; and

d)  agenda items not disposed of during the course of two consecutive
    WRCs should not be addressed by the following WRC.[^196]

**Summary**

[]{.mark}

NTIA believes that the results of past WRCs reflect that while the
United States is able to work quite well in the ITU WRC environment to
protect and promote its interests, the U.S. WRC preparatory process
should continually be improved to keep up with the changing
international environment. The United States was successful at these
conferences in a large part due to the involvement of the federal
agencies and the private sector and the oversight of the technical and
proposal preparation processes by State, the FCC, and NTIA. Before
WRC-03, NTIA actively sought the involvement of a number of federal
agencies that had never before participated and sought for the first
time to identify agency representatives as issue coordinators throughout
the preparatory process.

The U.S. Government should regularly review its WRC preparation process
to ensure that it remains current with the evolving spectrum
requirements and technologies and the international negotiating
environment. In learning from past WRCs and by synthesizing best
practices, NTIA recommends that improvements be made in several key
areas of WRC preparation, including:

**Senior-Level Engagement**. As demonstrated in preparing for WRC-03,
the resolution of difficult issues and the ultimate success at the WRC
can be better achieved through greater engagement of agency leadership.
Senior participation and policy direction at early points could greatly
facilitate issue resolution. Earlier resolution means early preparation
and an earlier opportunity to convey U.S. views**.** The Coordinator for
Communications and Information Policy at the Department of State, the
NTIA Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and the FCC
Chairman have continued to improve their interagency communications,
taking a more forward-looking approach to accommodate advances in
technology. This engagement will be carried into the WRC preparatory
processes for WRC-07.

**Cooperation and Coordination of Federal and Non-Federal
Preparations**. NTIA believes that while the federal and non-federal
preparatory processes are currently working well, State, NTIA and the
FCC should continue to seek opportunities for early and ongoing dialog.

**International Consultations and Communication**. State, the FCC and
NTIA have actively been pursuing ways to better coordinate to improve
our international consultation efforts as we prepare for international
fora such as WRCs. In many instances, European or Asian-Pacific, Arab or
African nations come to the WRC with unified positions. The United
States' ability to reach consensus early with other countries in the
Americas on important issues helps ensure that U.S. policy views will
prevail in the WRC.

Consultations with other countries at all levels need to be a constant
activity throughout the WRC cycle in order for the United States to be
successful in conveying its views to others. We are already well on the
way to meeting this goal for the next WRC in 2007.

**Delegation Preparation**. NTIA believes that the United States can
take steps to better prepare our delegations through creating
delegations, selecting spokespersons and issue coordinators, and
appointing a highly qualified Ambassador as early as possible.

**Implementation**. As noted earlier, NTIA and the FCC are working hard
to ensure that implementation of the WRC Final Acts are completed in a
timely manner. Early implementation of any WRC results provides
certainty to industry facilitates planning activities and stimulates
investment and job creation. Establishing a clear implementation plan
and moving quickly to carry it forward fulfills these goals.

The radio spectrum is vital both to our national and economic security.
NTIA looks forward to working in continued partnership with Congress to
develop the best possible process for preparing for United States
participation in WRCs.

**Appendix A**

**Federal Register Notice**

## ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.947916666666667in" height="9.001388888888888in"} 

## ![](media/image4.jpeg){width="6.947916666666667in" height="9.001388888888888in"}

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="6.947916666666667in"
height="9.001388888888888in"}

**Appendix B**

**Comments Received**

Comments were received from:

-   National Aeronautics and Space Administration

-   New York Satellite Industries, LLC and Final Analysis Communications
    Services, Inc.

-   United States International Telecommunication Union Association

-   Winstar Communications, LLC

Copies of the comments are available at
<http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2003/wrcrfc/index.html>

[^1]: *See* U.S. Government Accountability Office, *Telecommunications:
    Better Coordination and Enhanced Accountability Needed to Improve
    Spectrum Management* (GAO-02-906), at 35 (September 30, 2002) (GAO
    Report).

[^2]: *See* GAO Report, *supra* note 1, at 3-4.

[^3]: Request for Comment on Improvements to the U.S. Preparation
    Process for World Radiocommunication Conferences, NTIA, 68 Fed. Reg.
    60646 (October 20, 2003) (NTIA Notice).

[^4]: CITEL PCCII on Broadcasting and Radiocommunications acts as a
    technical advisory body within the Inter-American Telecommunication
    Commission with respect to standards coordination, planning,
    operation, and technical assistance for the broadcasting service in
    its different forms. PCCII deals with standards coordination,
    planning, and full and efficient use of the radio spectrum and
    satellite orbits, as well as matters pertaining to
    radiocommunication services in the member states.

[^5]: United States Delegation Report, World Radiocommunication
    Conference 2003, Geneva, Switzerland, June 9 - July 4, 2003,
    Ambassador Janice Obuchowski, United States Head of Delegation, U.S.
    Department of State, at iii, (March 2004) (WRC 03 Report).

[^6]: *Id*.

[^7]: Recommendations to Improve United States Participation in World
    Radiocommunication Conferences

    Ambassador Gail S. Schoettler, U.S. Head of Delegation, World
    Radiocommunication Conference 2000, at 2 (June 27, 2000) (WRC 2000
    Recommendations).

[^8]: *Id*.

[^9]: *See* NTIA Notice, *supra* note 3.

[^10]: *See* Appendix B.

[^11]: NY and FACS Comments, Docket No. 031016259-3259-01, at 5, (Nov.
    24, 2003), *available at*
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2003/wrcrfc/comments/NYSFACS.htm>.

[^12]: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Comments, Docket
    No. 031016259-3259-01, at 9, (Nov. 26, 2003) (NASA Comments),
    *available at*
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2003/wrcrfc/comments/NASA.htm>.

[^13]: USITUA Comments, Docket No. 031016259-3259-01, at 7 (Nov. 24,
    2003) (USITUA Comments), *available at*
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2003/wrcrfc/comments/USITUA.pdf>.

[^14]: NYS and FACS Comments, *supra* note 11, at 2.

[^15]: *Id*.

[^16]: The Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) is the culmination of
    the ITU-R technical work preparing for WRCs. The CPM occurs in two
    sessions, CPM-1 held the week following the conclusion of the WRC to
    plan the work for the period until the next WRC, and CPM-2 held
    about 6 months prior to the WRC. At CPM-2 administrations approve
    the studies and conclusions that form the technical basis for the
    WRC.

[^17]: The General Services Administration chartered this committee to
    State as an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee
    Act (FACA).

[^18]: 47 U.S.C. § 902 (2000).

[^19]: The IRAC is an advisory committee that provides NTIA with the
    views of the federal agency spectrum managers. It serves in an
    advisory capacity to the Assistant Secretary and reports to the
    Deputy Associate Administrator for Domestic Spectrum Management,
    Office of Spectrum Management. It also assists the Assistant
    Secretary in assigning frequencies to U.S. Government radio stations
    and in developing and executing policies, programs, procedures, and
    technical criteria pertaining to the allocation, management, and use
    of the spectrum.

[^20]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 2.

[^21]: Winstar Communications, LLC Comments, Docket No.
    031016259-3259-01, at 4 (Nov. 24, 2003) (Winstar Comments),
    *available at*
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2003/wrcrfc/comments/Winstar.pdf>
    .

[^22]: NYS and FACS Comments, *supra* note 11, at 6.

[^23]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 1.

[^24]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 7.

[^25]: *Id*.

[^26]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 9.

[^27]: *Id.* at 8.

[^28]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 8.

[^29]: *Id*.

[^30]: WRC 2000 Recommendations, *supra* note 7, at 12, 14.

[^31]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 1, 2.

[^32]: *Id*.

[^33]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 1.

[^34]: *Id*.

[^35]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 2, 3.

[^36]: *Id*. at 2.

[^37]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 1.

[^38]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 3.

[^39]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 1, 2.

[^40]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 2.

[^41]: *Id*.

[^42]: Winstar Comments, supra note 22, at 3.

[^43]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 2.

[^44]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 3, 4.

[^45]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 2.

[^46]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 2.

[^47]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 4

[^48]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 2; *see also*, NTIA Manual
    of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency
    Management, at ¶ 2.4 (Jan. 2004) (NTIA Manual). The NTIA Manual is
    *available at*
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/redbook.html>.

[^49]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 4.

[^50]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 3.

[^51]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 2.

[^52]: *Id*.

[^53]: *Id*. at 3.

[^54]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 6.

[^55]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 4.

[^56]: *Id.* at 2.

[^57]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 3-4.

[^58]: *See supra* note 17. The ITAC-R covers radiocommunication issues.

[^59]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 3.

[^60]: *Id*.

[^61]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 3.

[^62]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 4.

[^63]: *Id.*

[^64]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 3.

[^65]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 3

[^66]: *Id*.

[^67]: *Id*.

[^68]: *Id*.

[^69]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 3.

[^70]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 5.

[^71]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 4.

[^72]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 3.

[^73]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 5.

[^74]: WRC 03 Report, *supra* note 5, at 78.

[^75]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 6.

[^76]: *Id.*

[^77]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 6.

[^78]: *Id.* at 9.

[^79]: *Id.*

[^80]: *Id.*

[^81]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 8.

[^82]: *Id*.

[^83]: *Id*.

[^84]: *Id*.

[^85]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 9.

[^86]: *Id*.

[^87]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^88]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 6.

[^89]: *Id*.

[^90]: *Id*.

[^91]: *Id.* at 2.

[^92]: *Id.* at 6.

[^93]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^94]: *Id*.

[^95]: *Id.*

[^96]: *Id.*

[^97]: *Id.* at 6.

[^98]: *Id*. at 7.

[^99]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 6.

[^100]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^101]: *Id*.

[^102]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 6.

[^103]: *Id*.

[^104]: *See* 22 U.S.C. § 2707 (b) (1).

[^105]: *See* 22 USC §3942 (a)(2)(B)(i).

[^106]: ^107^ A Nominated Delegation is the formal list of recommended
    individuals to serve on the delegation. Upon instructions from the
    responsible Department of State office, in the case of WRC this is
    the Office of International Organizations, State will accredit
    official U.S. delegations to the government of a country or to the
    headquarters of an intergovernmental organization. This is then the
    accredited delegation.

[^107]: *Id.*

[^108]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 3.

[^109]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 6.

[^110]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 4.

[^111]: *Id.*

[^112]: *Id.*

[^113]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 3.

[^114]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^115]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 6.

[^116]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 4.

[^117]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 6; USITUA Comments,
    *supra* note 13, at 4.

[^118]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 4.

[^119]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 5.

[^120]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 7.

[^121]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 4; Winstar Comments,
    *supra* note 22, at 7.

[^122]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 4.

[^123]: *Id.*

[^124]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 4.

[^125]: *Id.*

[^126]: WRC 2000 Recommendations, supra note 7, at 13.

[^127]: *Id.*

[^128]: *Id.*

[^129]: Spectrum Management in the 21st Century, A Report of the CSIS
    Commission on Spectrum Management, at 18 (Oct. 2003)(CSIS Report),
    available at <http://www.csis.org/pubs/2003_spectrum.htm>.

[^130]: *Id.*

[^131]: *Id*. at 18, 19.

[^132]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 5.

[^133]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 7.

[^134]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 4.

[^135]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 5.

[^136]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 7.

[^137]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 4, 5.

[^138]: *Id.* at 3

[^139]: *Id*.

[^140]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 4.

[^141]: The Ambassador can be appointed at most five months prior to the
    WRC as the appointment is valid for only about six months.

[^142]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 6.

[^143]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 5.

[^144]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 4.

[^145]: WRC 2000 Recommendations, *supra* note 7, at 16.

[^146]: CSIS Report, *supra* note 129, at 21.

[^147]: *Id.*

[^148]: *Id*.

[^149]: See 22 U.S.C. Section 3942(a)(s)(B)(i).

[^150]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 5.

[^151]: *See* GAO Report, *supra* note 1, at 25.

[^152]: *Id.*

[^153]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 5.

[^154]: *Id*.

[^155]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 6.

[^156]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 8.

[^157]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 6.

[^158]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 5.

[^159]: *Id*.

[^160]: *Id*. at 8.

[^161]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 5, 6.

[^162]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 8.

[^163]: *Id*.

[^164]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 9.

[^165]: *Id*.

[^166]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 9.

[^167]: *Id*.

[^168]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 8.

[^169]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 9.

[^170]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^171]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 6.

[^172]: *Id*.

[^173]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^174]: *Id.*

[^175]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 7.

[^176]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^177]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 7.

[^178]: NTIA Manual, *supra* note 48, at ¶ 4.1.2.

[^179]: *See* GAO Report, *supra* note 1, at 24.

[^180]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^181]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 7.

[^182]: *Id*.

[^183]: *See* GAO Report, *supra* note 1, at 24.

[^184]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 7.

[^185]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 7.

[^186]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 8.

[^187]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 7.

[^188]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 8.

[^189]: NYS and FACS Comments, *supra* note 11, at 1.

[^190]: *Id*. at 5.

[^191]: USITUA Comments, *supra* note 13, at 8.

[^192]: Winstar Comments, *supra* note 21, at 9.

[^193]: NASA Comments, *supra* note 12, at 9.

[^194]: *Id.*

[^195]: *Id*.

[^196]: International Telecommunication Union, Council Geneva - 2003
    Session - (5 - 16 May), Document C03/38-E, 21 April 2003, United
    States of America, Draft Resolution \[USA-1\], Improving the
    Effectiveness of World Radiocommunication Conferences.