69–115 

110TH CONGRESS EXEC. REPT. " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–28 

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION 

SEPTEMBER 23, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DODD, from the Committee on Foreign Relations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany Treaty Docs. 108–5, 109–11, and 110–16] 

The Committee on Foreign Relations, to which were referred the 

amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended by 

the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), signed by the United 

States at Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, and contained in the 

Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998) 

(the ‘‘1998 Amendment’’) (Treaty Doc. 108–5); amendments to the 

Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended by the Plenipotentiary 

Conference (Kyoto 1994) and the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), signed by the United States at Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, and contained in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary 

Conference (Marrakesh 2002) (the ‘‘2002 Amendment’’) (Treaty Doc. 

109–11); and amendments to the Constitution and the Convention 

of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as 

amended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), and the Plenipotentiary 

Conference (Marrakesh 2002), signed by the United States at Antalya on November 24, 2006, and contained in the Final Acts of the 

Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006) (the ‘‘2006 Amendment’’) (Treaty Doc. 110–16), having considered the same, reports 

favorably thereon subject to declarations and reservations, as indicated in the resolutions of advice and consent for each treaty, and 

recommends the Senate give its advice and consent to ratification 

thereof, as set forth in this report and the accompanying resolutions of advice and consent. 

2 

1 130 CONSOLIDATED TREATY SERIES 198 (1864–1865) (French) (Clive Parry ed., Oceana 1969). 

The original treaty, the International Telegraph Convention, was signed on May 17, 1865 by 

the following countries: France, Austria, The Grand Duchy of Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Hamburg, Hanover, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, 

Saxe-Hildburghausen, Sweden-Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Wu ̈ rttemberg. It appears, 

however, that it was not until 1868, in a new iteration of the 1865 treaty, that the International 

Telegraph Union was founded, which was at the time known as the ‘‘Berne Bureau’’ because 

it was located in Berne. See Leive, INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW: THE REGULATION OF THE RADIO SPECTRUM 31–32 (Oceana 1970). 2See FROM SEMAPHORE TO SATELLITE 28 (International Telecommunication Union 1965). The 

first public message over a telegraph was sent between Washington and Baltimore by Samuel 

Finley Breeze Morse (1791–1872), who developed the famous Morse code. Morse had obtained 

$30,000 in 1843 for a telegraph line from Washington to Baltimore, which was opened on January 1, 1945. Reportedly, the ‘‘first message sent by Morse was the phrase ‘What hath God 

wrought’.’’ These were apparently the same words that President Kennedy used in the first telephone conversation over a SYNCOM satellite on August 23, 1963. Ibid. 3The United States signed the International Wireless Telegraph Convention in 1906 (also 

known as the International Radiotelegraph Convention), and after receiving the advice and consent of the Senate, the President ratified that Convention in 1912. See Ex. A, 60–1. The International Wireless Telegraph Convention was signed by many of the same countries in Europe 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 

II. Background .................................................................................................... 2 

III. Major Provisions ............................................................................................ 4 

IV. Entry Into Force ............................................................................................ 12 

V. Implementing Legislation ............................................................................. 12 

VI. Committee Action .......................................................................................... 12 

VII. Committee Recommendation and Comments .............................................. 12 

VIII. Resolution of Advice and Consent to Ratification ....................................... 20 

I. PURPOSE

These three sets of amendments to the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (the ‘‘ITU’’) 

are generally designed to: (1) facilitate further private-sector involvement in the organization; (2) improve the efficiency, flexibility, 

and effectiveness of the ITU as a functioning organization; and (3) 

promote greater fiscal stability and transparency at the ITU. 

II. BACKGROUND

The International Telecommunication Union (the ‘‘ITU’’), based 

in Geneva with a membership of 191 countries, is the principal 

international organization in the area of information and communication technologies, providing a forum for global cooperation and 

coordination and the promotion of more effective and efficient use 

of such technologies generally. The ITU was founded in 1865. The 

original treaty was signed by 20 European countries1 approximately twenty years after the first public message over a telegraph 

was sent between Washington and Baltimore2 and called for common rules for European telegraphy. Over the next few decades the 

periodic conferences held by States that were parties to the original 

treaty or the treaties that subsequently superseded the 1865 treaty 

along with a Secretariat that provided administrative support, became known as the ‘‘International Telegraph Union.’’ On a parallel 

track, radio communication technology was developing and in 1906, 

the first Radiotelegraph Conference was convened to establish rules 

governing the international use of radio. A Radiotelegraph Convention and Radiotelegraph Regulations were adopted at the 1906 conference in Berlin. The United States joined the Radiotelegraph 

Convention in 19123 and also became a member of the InterVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\REPORT~3\EX110-28.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
3 

that had signed the International Telegraph Convention of 1865, but also included Great Britain, Brazil, Uruguay, Persia, and of course, the United States. 4On July 5, 1912, the United States signed the International Radiotelegraph Convention, 

which was the latest iteration of the 1865 International Telegraph Convention. This Convention 

was submitted to the Senate by President Taft on January 11, 1913. See Ex. A, 60–3. The transmittal notes, among other things, that advances in the development of radiotelegraphy had been 

‘‘greatly aided as a result of the extremely efficient accomplishments of the radio section of the 

Berne International Bureau of the Telegraphic Union.’’ Id. at p. 52. 5The International Telecommunication Convention, Ex. B, 73–2, was signed by the United 

States at Madrid on December 9, 1932, approved by the Senate on May 1, 1934, and ratified 

by the President shortly thereafter. 6 Agreement between the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union, 

signed on April 26, 1949, 316 U.N.T.S. 175. 7The 1992 ITU Constitution and Convention, along with amendments to both instruments 

concluded in 1994, were submitted to the Senate by the President on September 13, 1996 (Treaty Doc. 104–34) and approved by the Senate on October 23, 1997. 

national Telegraph Union that same year.4 At a conference in 1932, 

it was decided to combine the International Telegraph Convention 

and the International Radiotelegraph Convention to form the International Telecommunication Convention.5 The Conference further 

decided that the name of the Union should be changed to ‘‘International Telecommunication Union’’ (the ‘‘ITU’’) in order to reflect 

the full scope of the Union’s responsibilities, which by this time 

covered all forms of wireline and wireless communication. Under 

an agreement with the United Nations, the organization became a 

UN specialized agency on October 15, 1947.6

Today, some 140 years after its creation, the fundamental objectives of the ITU remain the same, but the scope of the organization’s mandate is much broader, commensurate with the expansive 

development of telecommunication technologies over the decades. 

The ITU provides a forum for global telecommunication standardization activities; for the international allocation, management, and 

use of spectrum, including broadcasting, satellite sound broadcasting, mobile satellite services, and space services; and, in the 

case of developing countries, for the promotion and provision of 

technical assistance in the area of telecommunications. 

In 1992, the ITU underwent a major reorganization, which was 

undertaken in response to significant changes and developments in 

the telecommunications area. There are now two treaties that provide the legal basis for the organization: the ITU Constitution and 

Convention. The United States is a party to both instruments, 

which contain complementary provisions.7 The ITU Constitution 

sets out overarching principles governing the ITU’s basic structure, 

purpose, and functions, while the Convention provides greater detail regarding the functional and procedural implementation of the 

broad structure set forth in the Constitution. 

The top policy-making body of the ITU is the Plenipotentiary 

Conference, which meets every four years and consists of representatives of States that are party to the ITU Constitution and Convention. The executive body of the ITU, the ITU Council, meets annually and governs the organization in the interim between Plenipotentiary Conferences. The Council is composed of Member States 

elected by the Plenipotentiary Conference; the United States currently has a seat on the Council. The Council facilitates the implementation of the Constitution, the Convention, Administrative Regulations (International Telecommunications Regulations and Radio 

Regulations), Plenipotentiary Conference decisions and, where appropriate, decisions of other conferences and meetings of the Union. 

The General Secretariat of the ITU, run by the Secretary-General, 

4 

is the administrative arm of the organization. The work of the ITU 

is carried out within three ITU sectors: 

The Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) 

The Radiocommunication Sector’s primary objective is to manage 

the international radio-frequency spectrum and satellite orbits, so 

as to maximize effective use of these resources while minimizing 

interference in the operation of radiocommunication systems. The 

Sector uses instruments such as the Radio Regulations and regional agreements, which are updated periodically, to implement 

its objective. 

The Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) 

The Telecommunication Standardization Sector is responsible for 

making recommendations regarding universal standards for telecommunications. The World Telecommunication Standardization 

Assembly meets every four years to define the general policy for 

the Sector, establish study groups on that basis, and approve the 

work expected to occur before the next Assembly. 

The Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D) 

The Telecommunication Development Sector is responsible for 

generally assisting developing countries in developing information 

and communication technologies, narrowing the digital divide, and 

increasing the information flow to and from developing countries. 

III. MAJOR PROVISIONS

Detailed summaries of the 1998 Amendment, the 2002 Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment may be found in the relevant Letters of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the President, 

which are reprinted in full in Treaty Documents 108–5, 109–11, 

and 110–16. As described above in Section I, these amendments are 

generally designed to facilitate further private-sector involvement 

in the ITU, improve the efficiency, flexibility, and effectiveness of 

the ITU’s functioning, and promote greater fiscal stability and 

transparency at the ITU. A brief description of key provisions of 

the amendments that accomplish these objectives is set forth below. 

A. FACILITATION OF PRIVATE SECTOR INVOLVEMENT

Matching the remarkable developments in technology, private 

sector participation in the field of telecommunications has grown 

markedly over the past several decades. This growth is nowhere 

more apparent than in the increased interest shown by the private 

sector in assisting the ITU and Member States in addressing the 

evolving international telecommunication environment. Private entities can participate in the work of a particular sector as a Sector 

Member or as an Associate. In an effort to clarify the rights and 

obligations of these different memberships, facilitate private sector 

participation, and distinguish Sector Members from Member 

States, the 1998 Amendment amended Article 3 of the Constitution 

and Article 19 of the Convention so as to clearly define the roles 

of private sector participants in the work of the ITU. Specifically, 

Sector Members are generally entitled to participate fully in the activities of the Sector of which they are members, while Associates 

5 

8For the years 2006–2007, a contributory unit is valued at 63,600 Swiss Francs for Sector 

Members, while a contributory unit for Associates has been fixed at 10,600 Swiss Francs for 

the ITU Radiocommunication Sector and ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector, 3,975 

Swiss Francs for the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector and 1,987.50 Swiss Francs 

for Associates from developing countries participating in the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector. 9There is a publicly available list of Sector Members on the ITU’s website at http://itu.int/ 

cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search==SEC&—languageid=1 and Associates at http:// 

www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=ASSOCIATES&_languageid=1. 

are admitted by the Assembly or Conference of a Sector to participate in the work of a particular study group or subgroup of the 

Sector. In general, Sector Members have greater rights and obligations than Associates and pay more for their membership.8 To date, 

there are 568 Sector Members and 153 Associates.9 In response to 

questions from the committee regarding the role and importance of 

Sector Members and Associates in the work of the ITU, Senior 

Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird responded as follows: 

Sector Members have an important role to play in all 

three ITU Sectors, but their participation relative to that 

of Member States varies from Sector to Sector. In the 

[Telecommunication Standardization Sector], since national networks have been privatized, Member States generally no longer engage in technical work (with some exceptions where there are national interests at stake, such 

as priority of communications in times of national disasters and emergencies, or identity management). Consequently, Sector Members are largely responsible for preparing technical contributions for telecommunications 

standards. In the [Radiocommunication Sector], both Sector Members and Member States have major stakes in obtaining and protecting radio spectrum. In the [Telecommunication Development Sector], with some notable 

exceptions, the private sector has historically been much 

less involved. This may be because the business case for 

assisting developing countries is much less obvious than 

the need to obtain spectrum for a new service (in the 

[Radiocommunication Sector]), or to establish an international standard for telecommunications equipment (in 

the [Telecommunication Standardization Sector]). 

* * * * * * * 

Associates [also] play an important role in the ITU 

standards development process. Creation of an Associate 

category has increased private sector participation in the 

ITU and brought into the ITU process entities with specialized expertise in particular fields of telecommunications. The private sector has benefited from the Associate category because it has allowed entities that have expertise in a particular telecommunications subject to participate in that part of the work of the ITU that is of interest to them, at a lower rate than they would have to pay 

as Sector Members. 

The 1998 Amendment amended several other articles of the Constitution and Convention in order to further facilitate private sector 

participation in the ITU. For example, Article 20 of the Convention 

was amended to provide that a Sector, through its Bureau Director, 

6 

10Treaty Doc. 108–5 at p. VII. 

may invite participation in a specified matter by organizations that 

do not generally participate in the Sector. Article 3 of the Constitution was amended to permit Sector Members to be chairs and vice 

chairs of Sector assemblies and meetings, and World Telecommunication Development Conferences. Additionally, Article 19 of the 

Convention was amended to provide that private entities applying 

for Sector Membership could, if their Member State had authorized 

such a process, apply directly to the Secretary General to become 

a Sector Member. In the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of 

State to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 108–5, it is noted that ‘‘for domestic policy reasons [the 

United States] will require that U.S. private sector entities seeking 

to become Sector Members apply for such membership through current procedures, which require the direct involvement of the U.S. 

government.’’ 10 In response to questions from the committee, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird further explained that 

the ‘‘U.S. has chosen to maintain minimal oversight over which 

U.S. entities are allowed to apply for ITU membership for a number of reasons’’ including that the United States, ‘‘which has more 

Sector Members than any other country, wants to be kept informed 

about what U.S. entities are participating in the ITU.’’ 

The 2002 Amendment and the 2006 Amendment further facilitate private sector involvement in the ITU, particularly with respect to private sector participation in meetings. For example, the 

2002 Amendment amends Article 4 of the Convention to allow Sector Members to be represented as observers at meetings of the 

Council, its committees, and its working groups, subject to conditions to be established by the Council. The 2006 Amendment 

amends Article 4 of the Convention to clarify that Sector Members 

may attend—and not merely be represented at—meetings of the 

Council, its committees, and its working groups, subject to certain 

conditions. The 2006 Amendment additionally amends Article 23 of 

the Convention to clarify that observers of specified organizations, 

agencies, and entities may participate in Plenipotentiary Conferences in an advisory capacity; amends Article 24 of the Convention to clarify that observers of certain organizations and agencies, 

including international organizations, may participate in 

radiocommunication conferences in an advisory capacity; and 

amends Article 25 to clarify that observers from certain organizations and agencies may participate in an advisory capacity with respect to radiocommunication assemblies, world telecommunication 

standardization assemblies, and telecommunication development 

conferences. 

Although the State Department has indicated that it views private sector participation in the ITU’s activities as ‘‘crucial to the future success of the ITU,’’ the Department has also noted in testimony that ‘‘if changes were made [to] the ITU’s procedural rules 

that resulted in Sector Members gaining control over the ITU’s 

processes, such changes would be a concern because they could prevent Member States from exercising their appropriate role as 

guardians of the public interest and national security.’’ The Executive Branch has assured the committee in testimony that ‘‘[n]o such 

changes are currently envisioned.’’ 

7 

B. IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY, FLEXIBILITY, AND EFFECTIVENESS OF

THE ITU

Working Methods 

All three amendments to the ITU Convention attempt to improve 

the working methods of the ITU. Specifically, the 1998 Amendment 

amends Article 20 of the Convention to explicitly recognize the 

right of Sector Members to participate in the adoption of questions 

to be studied in ITU study groups in accordance with procedures 

established by the relevant conference or assembly. The 1998 

Amendment also amends Article 20 to permit a conference or assembly to adopt certain recommendations that are discussed in a 

study group without the formal consultation of Member States, so 

long as such recommendations have no policy or regulatory implications. These procedures allow the technical work of the ITU to proceed more efficiently. In response to a question from the committee, 

the Administration responded as follows regarding the utility of 

these procedures: 

Pursuant to Article 20 (in particular, paragraph CV 246- 

A and 246-D), Member States have established procedures 

for both study Questions and Recommendations to be 

adopted without formal consultation of the Member States 

where there is no doubt that the Questions and Recommendations involved lack policy or regulatory implications. In the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector, Questions may be adopted at Study Group meetings 

where there is consensus. . . . Recommendations may also 

be adopted without formal Member State consultation pursuant to the streamlined process set forth in ITU-T Recommendation A.8. Twenty-two Questions were adopted 

during the 2004–2008 period without formal Member State 

consultation. 

In the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector, 

most Recommendations are highly technical and do not involve regulatory or policy issues, and are therefore approved under the streamlined process, i.e., by the Member 

States and Sector Members present at the Study Group 

meeting without further formal consultation of all Member 

States. In the period from 2004–2008, there were 840 ITUT Recommendations approved using this process; a list of 

these can be provided if requested. It is estimated that this 

constitutes over 90% of the ITU-T’s recommendations during this period. However, even in these cases, Member 

States may call for a formal Member State consultation 

process where they believe policy or regulatory issues are 

involved. 

To facilitate the work of the three sectors and provide for greater 

flexibility, the 2002 Amendment amends the Constitution by adding a provision that specifically recognizes the authority of the 

Radiocommunication Assembly, the World Telecommunication 

Standardization Assembly, and the World Telecommunication Development Conference to establish and adopt working methods and 

procedures for their respective sectors, although they must be compatible with the Constitution, Convention, and Administrative RegVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\REPORT~3\EX110-28.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
8 

11See Chapter IVA of the Constitution as amended by the 1998 Amendment, Treaty Doc. 109– 

11 at p. 32. See also Articles 8(1bis), 13(1bis), and 16(1) of the Convention as amended by the 

1998 Amendment, Treaty Doc. 109–11 at pp. 54, 58, and 60. 12Treaty Doc. 108–5 at p. 23. 13Treaty Doc. 104–34 at p. 32. 14See Treaty Doc. 110–16 at p. 4. Note, also, that this reduction in the number of World 

Radiocommunication Conferences and Assemblies would appear to have the added benefit of reducing the overall costs incurred by the ITU. 

ulations.11 The 2002 Amendment also amends Article 4 of the Convention to allow Member States that are not members of the Council to participate as observers at meetings of the Council, but without the right to vote. 

The 2006 Amendment amends Article 5 of the Convention to 

clarify that the Secretary-General of the ITU, the Deputy Secretary-General, or a representative of the Secretary-General may 

participate in ITU conferences or other ITU meetings in an advisory, rather than a ‘‘consultative’’ capacity. In response to questions 

from the committee, the Department of State indicated that this 

amendment reflected a concern that the term ‘‘consultative’’ provided the Secretary-General with too strong of a role in the decision-making process of the organization and thus the term was replaced with ‘‘advisory,’’ which is intended to indicate ‘‘that the Secretary-General and other ITU officials provide advice to the Member States but Member States need not consult them.’’ Article 16 

of the Convention is amended by the 2006 Amendment to provide 

that the world telecommunication development conferences may 

maintain, terminate, or establish study groups and allocate to them 

matters to be studied. In addition, the provision in the Convention 

relating to the functions of the Telecommunication Development 

Advisory Group (Article 17A) is amended to state that this Group 

shall act through the Director of the Telecommunication Development Bureau, thereby providing more direct control by the Director 

over the activities of the Telecommunication Development Advisory 

Group. 

Scheduling of Meetings 

Amendments were made to the Constitution in order to provide 

for greater flexibility in the timing of particular meetings. The 

1998 Amendment amends Article 13 of the Constitution, for example, so as to require that World Radiocommunication Conferences 

and Assemblies be held ‘‘normally . . . every two to three years’’ 12

as opposed to ‘‘normally . . . every two years.’’ 34 The purpose of this 

amendment was to promote flexibility and provide enough time between conferences for the necessary work to be done in preparation 

of the agenda. The 2006 Amendment modified these provisions yet 

again, to provide that World Radiocommunication Conferences and 

Assemblies shall be convened every three to four years.14

Functioning of the Radio Regulations Board 

The Radio Regulations Board (the ‘‘RRB’’) is a body of the ITU 

that consists of elected members highly qualified in 

radiocommunications who have substantial expertise in issues relating to the assignment and use of radio frequencies. The duties 

of the RRB include, among other things, approving rules of procedure to be used in the application of the Radio Regulations and 

consideration of radiocommunication matters that cannot be reVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\REPORT~3\EX110-28.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
9 

15 At present, six percent of the total number of Member States is not greater than 12. 16See Treaty Doc. 104–34 at p. 91. 17See Treaty Doc. 110–16 at p. 8. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid. 

solved through the application of such rules. The 1998 Amendment 

enlarged the RRB from 9 individuals to not more than 12 or a 

number corresponding to six percent of the total number of Member States, whichever is greater,15 which should enable the Board 

to handle the ever-increasing workload more effectively. The 2002 

Amendment amends Article 9 of the Constitution to expand the 

field from which qualified individuals could be elected to serve on 

the RRB by removing the prohibition against having members of 

the RRB that are of the same nationality as the Secretary-General 

of the ITU. The 2002 Amendments also amended Article 14 so as 

to grant members of the RRB, when performing their official duties, functional privileges and immunities equivalent to those 

granted to the elected officials of the ITU by each Member State. 

This amendment is intended to ensure that the members of the 

RRB can continue to function independently, without fearing that 

entities that disagree with findings of the RRB may attempt legal 

action against them. The 2002 Amendment additionally amends 

Article 10 of the ITU Convention to authorize the RRB, at the request of one or more states, to consider appeals against decisions 

made by the Radiocommunication Bureau regarding frequency assignments. 

Electing Officials of the ITU 

Article 2 of the Convention provides that elected officials of the 

ITU (the Secretary-General, the Deputy Secretary-General, and the 

Directors of the Bureaus) shall be eligible for re-election only 

once.16 The 2006 Amendment clarifies that this applies only to reelection for the same position.17 Also, the amendment clarifies that 

the restrictions on re-election for a second term applies regardless 

of whether the terms are consecutive.18 The 2006 Amendment similarly amended Article 3 to clarify that the existing restriction on 

re-election for a second term for members of the RRB applies regardless of whether the terms are consecutive.19

C. PROMOTING GREATER FISCAL STABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

The ITU operates on a biennial budget that is approved by the 

Council every two years, which must remain within the limits set 

by the Plenipotentiary Conference for two budgetary cycles. The expenses of the ITU are largely financed through the contributions of 

Member States and Sector Members. Other sources of financing include income from the sale of publications and satellite notifications, as well as income from interest on late payments. A few 

years ago, the ITU had financial difficulties, but due in part to the 

amendments adopted in 1998, 2002, and 2006, the organization has 

made considerable progress and now its finances are reasonably 

stable. Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird testified to 

the committee that ‘‘the Union is in far better financial shape than 

it was certainly in 2002’’ and that in 2007, a balanced budget was 

adopted by the Council for the first time. 

10 

20For the years 2006–2007, the budget of the Union stands at 339,435,000 Swiss Francs (ap- proximately $308,129,495.20), with a contributory unit valued at 318,000 Swiss Francs for Member States and 63,600 Swiss Francs for Sector Members. In addition, the contributory unit for 

Associates has been fixed at 10,600 Swiss Francs for the ITU Radiocommunication Sector and 

ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector, 3,975 Swiss Francs for the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector and 1,987.50 Swiss Francs for Associates from developing countries 

participating in the ITU Telecommunication Development Sector. 21See, e.g., Article 28(5), as amended by the 1998 Amendment, which states that ‘‘[w]hen 

choosing its class of contribution, a Member State shall not reduce it by more than two classes 

of contribution and the Council shall indicate to it the manner in which the reduction shall be 

gradually implemented over the period between plenipotentiary conferences. However, under exceptional circumstances such as natural disasters necessitating international aid programmes, 

the Plenipotentiary Conference may authorize a greater reduction in the number of contributory 

units contribution at the class originally chosen.’’ 

Classes of Contributions 

The mechanism for assessing contributions of Member States 

and Sector Members of the ITU is unusual. At a meeting of the 

Council prior to each Plenipotentiary Conference, the Council approves a proposed budget or ‘‘draft financial plan’’ and provisionally 

sets the value of a ‘‘contributory unit’’ for Member States and Sector Members on the basis of the proposed budget and the total 

number of contributory units.20 The units are incorporated into 

‘‘classes’’ of contributions that range from one-sixteenth of a contributory unit to 40 contributory units, as set forth in Article 33 of 

the Convention. The Secretary-General then informs the Member 

States and the Sector Members of the provisional amount of the 

contributory unit decided upon by the Council and invites Member 

States to announce to the ITU the class of contribution they have 

provisionally chosen. Each Member State and Sector Member is 

free to choose a ‘‘class of contribution’’ from the scale of contribution units although, in accordance with the 1998 Amendment, there 

are some limitations on the ability of a Member State to choose a 

lower contribution class than was chosen by that Member State at 

the last Plenipotentiary Conference.21

Each amendment to the Constitution has consistently moved up 

the date by which Member States must inform the ITU of the class 

of contribution they will make to the organization, in an attempt 

to provide the Plenipotentiary Conference with more timely information. The 1998 Amendment amends Article 28 of the Constitution to require that Member States announce their final decision 

regarding what class of contribution they intend to make to the 

ITU at the Plenipotentiary Conference, rather than during the sixmonth period following the Plenipotentiary Conference provided for 

in the 1994 Constitution. The 2002 Amendment clarifies that the 

Plenipotentiary Conference is to set the date by which time Member States shall announce their class of contribution within the ‘‘penultimate week’’ of the Conference. The 2006 Amendment goes one 

step further and requires that the Plenipotentiary Conference set 

a date for Member States to announce their class of contribution 

at the latest on Monday of the final week of the Conference, thereby providing more time to incorporate any financial implications of 

the levels chosen into the organization’s fiscal planning. The 2006 

Amendment additionally amended Article 33 to identify with more 

precision the organizations and Sector Members that are obliged to 

share in defraying the expenses of the conferences, assemblies, and 

meetings in which they participate. 

11 

22See Article 12, Article 15, and Article 18 of the Convention, Treaty Doc. 109–11 at pp. 58, 

60, and 62. 

Encouraging Additional Contributions and Savings on Costs 

In an attempt to encourage Sector Member contributions, the 

1998 Amendment amends Article 33 of the Convention to make 

clear that Sector Members should identify the Sector to which their 

contributions are to be made and provides that Associates shall 

share in defraying the expenses of the Sector and the study group 

and subordinate groups in which they participate, as determined 

by the Council. The 2002 Amendment went further by amending 

Article 28 of the Constitution to provide that Sector Members participating in regional conferences convened by the ITU to discuss 

telecommunication matters that are of particular interest to the region, must contribute to the costs of the regional conference. The 

2002 Amendment also amended Article 4 of the Convention to provide that the ITU, which had been bearing the travel, subsistence, 

and insurance expenses incurred by the representative of every 

Member State of the Council, would only pay such expenses for developing country representatives of the Council. In response to 

committee questions on this topic, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator 

Richard Beaird described the savings this amendment has already 

provided for the organization as follows: 

Using today’s conversion rate of [the] U.S. Dollar to [the] 

Swiss Franc (CHF) ($1 US = .97 CHF), the expected savings on travel expenses for the sixteen ITU Member States 

that are developed countries (at an average cost of $3,931) 

equals $62,896 per ITU council meeting. The ITU Council 

meets annually. Hence, the expected savings on daily subsistence allowance expenses for the sixteen ITU Member 

States that are developed countries (at $491/day over an 

average of 10 days), equals $78,560 per Council session. 

This results in a total savings of $141,456. 

Greater Transparency and More Effective Financial Planning 

To improve transparency and effective financial planning, the 

2002 Amendment amends Article 5 of the Convention to provide 

that the Secretary-General prepare a four-year rolling operational 

plan ‘‘taking due account of the financial plan as approved by the 

plenipotentiary conference.’’ This four-year operational plan is to be 

reviewed by the advisory groups of all three sectors and reviewed 

and approved annually by the Council. The 2002 Amendment similarly adds that the Director of each sector is required to prepare 

a rolling four-year operational plan annually, ‘‘including financial 

implications of activities to be undertaken by the Bureau in support of the Sector as a whole.’’ 22 Senior Advisory Groups are required to review the operational plans of their respective sectors. 

The Council must also annually approve each Sector’s rolling fouryear operational plan. 

In an effort to enhance oversight and increase the transparency 

of the budget of the ITU, the 2006 Amendment amends Article 4 

of the Convention to require that the Council carry out an annual 

review of income and expenditures in order to make adjustments, 

as appropriate, in accordance with the resolutions and decisions of 

12 

23See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), Treaty 

Doc. 108–5 at p. 43. 24See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002), Treaty 

Doc. 109–11 at p. 38. 25See Part II of the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006), Treaty Doc. 

110–16 at p. 6. 

the last Plenipotentiary Conference. In addition, Article 5 was 

amended to provide that, in preparing and submitting to the Council a biennial draft budget covering ITU expenditures, the Secretary-General shall include results-based as well as cost-based 

budget information. 

IV. ENTRY INTO FORCE

The 1998 Amendment entered into force on January 1, 2000, for 

those states that had notified the Secretary General of the ITU of 

their acceptance of the 1998 Amendment prior to January 1, 

2000,23 the 2002 Amendment entered into force on January 1, 

2004, for those states that had notified the Secretary General of 

the ITU of their acceptance of the 2002 Amendment prior to January 1, 2004,24 and the 2006 Amendment entered into force on January 1, 2008, for those states that had notified the Secretary General of the ITU of their acceptance of the 2006 Amendment prior 

to January 1, 2008.25 Each amendment will each enter into force 

for the United States on the date the United States deposits its instrument of ratification with the Secretary-General of the ITU for 

that amendment. 

V. IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION

Existing legislation is sufficient to fully implement the 1998 

Amendment, the 2002 Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment; no 

additional legislation is required. The 2002 Amendment, for example, amends Article 10 of the Convention so as to require that 

States Parties provide certain functional privileges and immunities 

to Members of the Radio Regulations Board equivalent to those 

granted to the elected officials of the ITU by each State Party. The 

United States, as made clear in a declaration included in the committee’s draft resolution of advice and consent, would satisfy this 

requirement through the International Organizations Immunities 

Act, 22 U.S.C. § 288 et seq. 

VI. COMMITTEE ACTION

The committee held a public hearing on these treaties on July 

10, 2008. Testimony was received from Mr. Richard C. Beaird, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and 

Information Policy at the Department of State. A transcript of this 

hearing can be found in the annex to Executive Report 110–15. 

On September 23, 2008, the committee considered these treaties 

and ordered them favorably reported by voice vote, with a quorum 

present and without objection. 

VII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND COMMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Relations believes that the ITU’s 

work is important to advancing U.S. economic, national security, 

and scientific interests. For example, the ITU is urging regional 

13 

26 According to the TIA, worldwide telecommunications revenue totaled $3.5 trillion in 2007, 

up 11.2 percent from 2006. See TIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS MARKET REVIEW AND FORECAST at 

3 (2008). 

groups to collaborate and identify the necessary spectrum for International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT), which will allow use of 

advanced broadband mobile technology on a global basis. The U.S. 

telecommunications industry is also highly dependent upon the 

ITU for radio spectrum management. According to the Telecommunications Industry Association (the ‘‘TIA’’), the worldwide 

telecommunications market is expected to grow at a 9.2 percent 

compound annual growth rate from 2008 to 2011 and U.S. companies expect to take full advantage of this growth.26 The United 

States is among the leading providers and consumers of telecommunications goods and services. In fact, the U.S. telecommunications industry’s revenue totaled $1 trillion in 2007. The ITU’s 

management of radio spectrum is of vital importance to U.S. defense, intelligence, and aeronautics agencies. The ITU has also 

been a leader in the development of Standards for Emergency Telecommunications and related Telecommunications for Disaster Relief, all of which are important to national security. Finally, the 

Radio Regulations provide frequency band allocations to support 

the NASA space station, Lunar, and Martian space exploration programs, as well as the next generation of unmanned deep space exploratory programs. In sum, these three amendments improve and 

strengthen an organization that is important to U.S. interests. Accordingly, the committee urges the Senate to act promptly to give 

advice and consent to ratification of the 1998 Amendment, the 2002 

Amendment, and the 2006 Amendment, as set forth in this report 

and the accompanying resolution of advice and consent. 

A. AMENDMENTS TO THE ITU’S GOVERNING INSTRUMENTS

The treaties before the committee reflect three separate sets of 

amendments made to the ITU’s governing instruments in an eightyear period. According to information contained in answers to questions for the record from the committee to Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator Richard Beaird, none of these sets of amendments has 

yet been ratified by as many as half of the ITU Member States, 

and to date only eight of 191 Member States have ratified the 2006 

Amendments. 

The committee is concerned that frequent amendments to the 

ITU’s governing documents, and slow and inconsistent ratification 

of such amendments by ITU member states, may result in confusion and uncertainty with respect to the rules governing the ITU 

and the participation of member states in its activities. This situation also undermines transparency and public understanding of the 

ITU and its work by making it difficult to identify the operative 

rules at any given time on issues affected by such amendments. 

The committee notes that if the ITU continues its current practice 

of amending its governing documents as a matter of routine every 

four years, these problems may be compounded further. The committee urges the executive branch to review this ITU practice prior 

to the next ITU Plenipotentiary Conference and to engage with 

other ITU member states as appropriate to address this issue. 

14 

27Prior to 1998, the Rules of Procedure for ITU Conferences and other meetings were contained in Article 32 (#340–406; 410–444; 447–467) of the ITU’s 1994 Convention (Treaty Doc. 

104–34), which is the most recent version of the ITU’s Convention approved by the Senate and 

ratified by the United States. These provisions were deleted by the 1998 Amendment. See Article 32B of the 1998 Convention, SUP 341–467, Treaty Doc. 108–5 at p. 90. 28Treaty Doc. 109–11 at p. 7. 29See Treaty Doc. 108–5 at p. IX. 

B. RULES OF PROCEDURES OF CONFERENCES

AND MEETINGS OF THE ITU 

The 1998 Amendment removes the Rules of Procedure of Conferences and Meetings of the ITU from the ITU Convention, with 

the exception of provisions relating to reservations and the right to 

vote, and transfers them to a separate instrument, which would not 

undergo the formal amendment process reserved for the Constitution and the Convention.27 This separate legal instrument entered 

into force on January 1, 2000, for those states that had accepted 

the 1998 Amendment as of that date. The 2002 Amendment transfers further provisions of the Convention to the Rules of Procedure, 

including rules relating to invitations to conferences and assemblies, procedures for convening or canceling world conferences and 

assemblies, provisions for conferences and assemblies when there 

is not an inviting government, changes in the place or dates of a 

conference or assembly, and time limits and conditions for submission of proposals and reports to conferences. In the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 109–11, it is noted that ‘‘several 

Member States argued that [the] rules of procedure should be subject to a more flexible amendment process than that currently applied to the Constitution and Convention.’’ 28

In the Letter of Submittal from the Secretary of State to the 

President, which is reprinted in full in Treaty Document 108–5, it 

is noted that the executive branch does not expect to submit 

amendments to the Rules of Procedures to the Senate for advice 

and consent to ratification.29 The committee recognizes that removing the Rules of Procedure of Conferences and Other Meetings of 

the ITU from the ITU Convention and transferring them to a separate document that is not subject to the formal amendment procedure provided for in the ITU Constitution and Convention makes 

it possible for the Rules of Procedure to be amended more rapidly 

as the ITU evolves than would otherwise be possible. The committee generally supports this development and agrees that amendments to the Rules of Procedure, which are largely procedural in 

nature, would not in the normal course require the advice and consent of the Senate. Nevertheless, if there is any question as to 

whether an amendment to the Rules of Procedure goes beyond 

what one would normally anticipate in such an instrument, the 

committee expects the executive branch to consult with the committee in a timely manner in order to determine whether Senate 

advice and consent is necessary. 

C. RESOLUTIONS

The committee has included in proposed resolutions for the three 

amendments various statements, which are discussed below. 

15 

I. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 1998 AMENDMENT

The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 1998 

Amendment includes five declarations and reservations, which 

were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of the 

Plenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, 

and are intended to be included in the instrument of ratification, 

along with a final declaration that is not intended to be included 

in the instrument of ratification. 

First and Second Statements (No. 90 (second and third paragraph)): 

(2) The United States of America reiterates and incorporates 

by reference all reservations and declarations made at world 

administrative conferences and world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of these Final Acts. 

(3) The United States of America does not by signature or by 

any subsequent ratification of the amendments to the Constitution and Convention adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis, 1998) consent to be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted prior to the date of signature of 

these Final Acts. Nor shall the United States of America be 

deemed to have consented to be bound by revisions of the Administrative Regulations, whether partial or complete, adopted 

subsequent to the date of signature of these Final Acts, without specific notification to the International Telecommunication 

Union by the United States of America of its consent to be 

bound. 

The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all prior 

statements made at world administrative conferences and world 

radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of these Final 

Acts in November 1998. The second proposed statement makes it 

clear that the United States can only be considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an ITU conference if the United 

States formally notifies the ITU of its consent to be bound. 

Third Statement (No. 101): 

The United States of America refers to declarations made by 

various Members reserving their right to take such actions as 

they may consider necessary to safeguard their interests with 

respect to application of provisions of the Constitution and the 

Convention of the International Telecommunications Union 

(Geneva, 1992), and any amendments thereto. The United 

States of America reserves the right to take whatever measures it deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests in response 

to such actions. 

This proposed statement is intended, as described in the Secretary 

of State’s Letter of Submittal, to reserve ‘‘for the United States the 

freedom to respond to other Member State reservations.’’ 

Fourth Statement (No. 102): 

The United States of America, noting Statement 81 entered 

by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to broadcast to Cuba 

on appropriate frequencies free of jamming or other wrongful 

interference and reserves its rights with respect to existing inVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\REPORT~3\EX110-28.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
16 

terference and any future interference by Cuba with U.S. 

broadcasting. Furthermore, the United States of America notes 

that its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an international agreement presently in force and that the United 

States of America reserves the right to meet its 

radiocommunciation requirements there as it has in the past. 

This proposed statement responds to a statement made by Cuba, 

which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United States at 

the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This response, which reserves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is similar to responses made 

by the United States at prior ITU conferences. 

Fifth Statement (No. 111): 

The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the United 

States and 24 other States], referring to the declaration made 

by the Republic of Colombia (No. 50), in as much as this and 

any similar statement refers to the Bogota Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial countries and to the claims of those 

countries to exercise sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary-satellite orbit, consider that the claims in question 

cannot be recognized by this conference. 

Further, the above-mentioned delegations wish to affirm or 

reaffirm the declaration made by a number of delegations (No. 

92) at the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto, 1994) and declarations at conferences referred to therein as if these declarations were here repeated in full. 

The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state that the 

reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to the ‘‘geographical 

situation of particular countries’’ does not imply a recognition 

of claim to any preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite 

orbit. 

This proposed statement responds to a statement by Colombia 

concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit. 

Final Declaration: 

This Treaty is not self-executing. 

This proposed declaration states that the 1998 Amendment is not 

self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements regarding 

the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Medellı ́n v. 

Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the committee has determined that a 

clear statement in the resolution is warranted. A further discussion 

of the committee’s views on this matter can be found in Section VIII 

of Executive Report 110–12. 

II. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 2002 AMENDMENT

The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 2002 

Amendment includes six declarations and reservations, which were 

made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of the 

Plenipotentiary Conference in Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, and 

are intended to be included in the instrument of ratification, along 

with a final declaration that is not intended to be included in the 

instrument of ratification. 

17 

First and Second Statements (No. 70 (second and third paragraph)): 

(2) The United States of America reiterates and incorporates 

by reference all reservations and declarations made at world 

administrative conferences and world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of these Final Acts. 

(3) The United States does not by signature to or by any subsequent ratification of the amendments to the Constitution and 

Convention adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh, 2002) consent to be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted prior to the date of signature of these Final Acts. 

Nor shall the United States of America be deemed to have consented to be bound by revisions of the Administrative Regulations, whether partial or complete, adopted subsequent to the 

date of signature of these Final Acts, without specific notification to the International Telecommunication Union of its consent to be bound. 

The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all prior 

statements made at world administrative conferences and world 

radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of these Final 

Acts in October 2002. The second proposed statement makes it clear 

that the United States can only be considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an ITU conference if the United States 

formally notifies the ITU of its consent to be bound. 

Third Statement (No. 71): 

In regard to the privileges and immunities to be extended 

pursuant to ADD No. 142A of Article 10 of the Convention of 

the International Telecommunication Union, the United States 

of America shall provide members of the Radio Regulations 

Board with functional privileges and immunities that are 

equivalent to those accorded to officials of international organizations that are designated under the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 United States Code 288 et seq. 

This proposed statement notes the manner in which the United 

States intends to implement the provision that requires that Member States, consistent with their respective national laws, grant 

members of the RRB functional privileges and immunities that are 

equivalent to those granted to the elected officials of the ITU. 

Fourth Statement (No. 79): 

The United States of America, noting Statement 72 entered 

by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to broadcast to Cuba 

on appropriate frequencies free of jamming or other wrongful 

interference and reserves its rights with respect to existing interference and any future interference by Cuba with U.S. 

broadcasting. Furthermore, the United States of America notes 

that its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an international agreement presently in force and that the United 

States of America reserves the right to meet its 

radiocommunication requirements there as it has in the past. 

This proposed statement responds to a statement made by Cuba, 

which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United States at 

the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This response, which reVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\REPORT~3\EX110-28.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
18 

serves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is similar to responses made 

by the United States at prior ITU conferences. 

Fifth Statement (No. 80): 

The United States of America refers to declarations made by 

various Member States reserving their right to take such action as they may consider necessary to safeguard their interests with respect to application of provisions of the Constitution and the Convention of the International Telecommunication Union (Geneva, 1992), and any amendments thereto. 

The United States of America reserves the right to take whatever measures it deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests 

in response to such actions. 

This proposed statement reserves the right of the United States to 

take such actions as it deems necessary in response to actions taken 

by other Member States that are detrimental to U.S. telecommunication interests. 

Sixth Statement (No. 101): 

The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the United 

States and 27 other States], referring to the declaration made 

by the Republic of Colombia (No. 45), inasmuch as this and 

any similar statement refers to the Bogota Declaration of 3 December 1976 by equatorial countries and to the claims of those 

countries to exercise sovereign rights over segments of the geostationary-satellite orbit, consider that the claims in question 

cannot be recognized by this conference. 

The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state that the 

reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to the ‘‘geographical 

situation of particular countries’’ does not imply recognition of 

claim to any preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite 

orbit. 

This proposed statement responds to a statement by Colombia 

concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit. 

Final Declaration: 

This Treaty is not self-executing. 

This proposed declaration states that the 2002 Amendment is not 

self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements regarding 

the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Medellı ́n v. 

Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the committee has determined that a 

clear statement in the resolution is warranted. A further discussion 

of the committee’s views on this matter can be found in Section VIII 

of Executive Report 110–12. 

III. DECLARATIONS AND RESERVATIONS TO THE 2006 AMENDMENT

The proposed resolution of advice and consent for the 2006 

Amendment includes five declarations and reservations, which 

were made by the United States when signing the Final Acts of the 

Plenipotentiary Conference in Antalya on November 24, 2006, and 

are intended to be included in the instrument of ratification, along 

with a final declaration that is not intended to be included in the 

instrument of ratification. 

19 

First and Second Statements (No. 70(1) (second and third paragraph)): 

The United States of America reiterates and incorporates by 

reference all reservations and declarations made at world administrative conferences and world radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of these Final Acts. 

The United States of America does not, by signature to or by 

any subsequent ratification of the amendments to the Constitution and Convention adopted by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, 2006), consent to be bound by the Administrative Regulations adopted prior to the date of signature of 

these Final Acts. Nor shall the United States of America be 

deemed to have consented to be bound by revisions of the Administrative Regulations, whether partial or complete, adopted 

subsequent to the date of signature of these Final Acts, without specific notification to the International Telecommunication 

Union of its consent to be bound. 

The first proposed statement incorporates by reference all prior 

statements made at world administrative conferences and world 

radiocommunication conferences prior to signature of these Final 

Acts in November 2006. The second proposed statement makes it 

clear that the United States can only be considered bound by Administrative Regulations adopted at an ITU conference if the United 

States formally notifies the ITU of its consent to be bound. 

Third Statement (No. 70(2)): 

The United States of America, recalling the principles of accountability, responsibility and transparency that are fundamental to United Nations reform, notes that it is essential that 

the International Telecommunication Union, in carrying out 

the mandates of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya, 

2006) adhere to those principles in order to achieve lasting reform. 

This proposed declaration states the view of the United States 

that the ITU, in carrying out the mandates of the Plenipotentiary 

Conference, should adhere to the principles of accountability, responsibility, and transparency. 

Fourth Statement (No. 104): 

(1) The United States of America refers to declarations made 

by various Member States reserving their right to take such 

action as they may consider necessary to safeguard their interests with respect to application of provisions of the Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication 

Union (Geneva, 1992), and any amendments thereto. The 

United States of America reserves the right to take whatever 

measures it deems necessary to safeguard U.S. interests in response to such actions. 

(2) The United States of America, noting Statement 80 entered by the delegation of Cuba, recalls its right to broadcast 

to Cuba on appropriate frequencies free of jamming or other 

wrongful interference and reserves its rights with respect to 

existing interference and any future interference by Cuba with 

U.S. broadcasting. Furthermore, the United States of America 

20 

notes that its presence in Guantanamo is by virtue of an international agreement presently in force and that the United 

States of America reserves the right to meet its 

radicommunication requirements there as it has in the past. 

The first paragraph of this proposed statement reserves the right 

of the United States to take such actions as it deems necessary in 

response to actions taken by other Member States that are detrimental to U.S. telecommunication interests. The second paragraph 

of this proposed statement responds to a statement made by Cuba, 

which concerns the use of radio frequencies by the United States at 

the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo, Cuba. This response, which reserves certain U.S. broadcasting rights, is similar to responses made 

by the United States at prior ITU conferences. 

Fifth Statement (No. 106): 

The delegations of the above-mentioned States [the United 

States and eight other States], referring to the declarations 

made by the Republic of Colombia (No. 58), Mexico (No. 34) 

and Ecuador (No. 55), inasmuch as these and any similar 

statements refer to the Bogotμ Declaration of 3 December 1976 

by equatorial countries and to the claims of those countries to 

exercise sovereign rights over segments of the geostationarysatellite orbit, or to any related claims, consider that the 

claims in question cannot be recognized by this Conference. 

The above-mentioned delegations also wish to state that the 

reference in Article 44 of the Constitution to the ‘‘geographical 

situation of particular countries’’ does not imply recognition of 

a claim to any preferential rights to the geostationary-satellite 

orbit. 

This proposed statement responds to statements by other countries 

concerning the use of the geostationary satellite orbit or related 

claims. 

Final Declaration: 

This Treaty is not self-executing. 

This proposed declaration states that the 2006 Amendment is not 

self-executing. The Senate has rarely included statements regarding 

the self-executing nature of treaties in resolutions of advice and consent, but in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, Medellı ́n v. 

Texas, 128 S.Ct. 1346 (2008), the committee has determined that a 

clear statement in the resolution is warranted. A further discussion 

of the committee’s views on this matter can be found in Section VIII 

of Executive Report 110–12. 

VIII. RESOLUTIONS OF ADVICE AND CONSENT TO RATIFICATION

1998 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF

THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS. 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the International 

Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended by the PleniVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:42 Sep 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\REPORT~3\EX110-28.TXT sfrela2 PsN: MIKEB
21 

potentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), signed by the United States at 

Minneapolis on November 6, 1998, as contained in the Final Acts 

of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998) (the ‘‘1998 

Final Acts’’) (Treaty Doc. 108–5), subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 90(second paragraph), 90(third paragraph), 101, 

102, and 111 of the 1998 Final Acts and the declaration of section 

2. 

SECTION 2. DECLARATION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration: 

This Treaty is not self-executing. 

2002 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF

THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS. 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the International 

Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994) and the Plenipotentiary Conference (Minneapolis 1998), signed by the United States at Marrakesh on October 18, 2002, as contained in the Final Acts of the 

Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002) (the ‘‘2002 Final 

Acts’’) (Treaty Doc. 109–11), subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 70(second paragraph), 70(third paragraph), 71, 79, 80, 

and 101 of the 2002 Final Acts and the declaration of section 2. 

SECTION 2. DECLARATION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration: 

This Treaty is not self-executing. 

2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONVENTION OF

THE INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring therein), 

SECTION 1. SENATE ADVICE AND CONSENT SUBJECT TO RESERVATIONS AND DECLARATIONS. 

The Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the amendments to the Constitution and Convention of the International 

Telecommunication Union (Geneva 1992), as amended by the Plenipotentiary Conference (Kyoto 1994), the Plenipotentiary Conference 

(Minneapolis 1998), and the Plenipotentiary Conference (Marrakesh 2002), signed by the United States at Antalya on November 

24, 2006, as contained in the Final Acts of the Plenipotentiary Conference (Antalya 2006) (the ‘‘2006 Final Acts’’) (Treaty Doc. 110– 

16), subject to declarations and reservations Nos. 70(1)(second 

paragraph), 70(1)(third paragraph), 70(2), 104, and 106 of the 2006 

Final Acts and the declaration of section 2. 

22 

SECTION 2. DECLARATION 

The advice and consent of the Senate under section 1 is subject 

to the following declaration: 

This Treaty is not self-executing. 

Æ