NTIA Report 05-427

WORLD       RADIOCOMMUNICATION CONFERENCES

Recommendations       for Improvement in the 

United       States       Preparatory Process

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

Principle 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

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 Items. 17 

Background. 17 

Comments. 18 

Conclusions       and Recommendations. 19 

6.     Outreach       and Consultations 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 

Conclusion       and Recommendations. 37 

10.             WRC Domestic Implementation Process. 37 

Background. 37 

Comments. 38 

Conclusion       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. 45 

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 (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       GoalsBackground
                  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 ProcessBackground
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 ProcessBackground
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 ProcessBackground
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       ItemsBackground
The U.S. preparatory process for       WRCs follows two related paths B       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       CountriesBackground
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 bilaterals 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 DelegationBackground
                  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 ActivitiesBackground
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.               TrainingBackground
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 ProcessBackground
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 IssuesBackground
                  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
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       AFederal       Register NoticeAppendix BComments       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/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/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/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).

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. § 3942(a)(2)(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.