[karc] Fwd: [RAC-Bulletin] [IARU-R2-News 160] Special WRC Report Number Two

From: Steve Cutway <ve3kc@xxxxxxxxx>
To: karc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 08:45:43 -0500
Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:31:42 -0500
Organization: Radio Amateurs of Canada
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222
  Thunderbird/9.0.1
Subject: [RAC-Bulletin] [IARU-R2-News 160] Special WRC Report Number Two
From: rac-bulletins@xxxxxxx
Reply-to: rachq@xxxxxx
To: Steve Cutway VE3KC <ve3kc@xxxxxx>

[IARU-R2-News 160] Special WRC Report Number Two
2012-02-03

The procedures used by the International 
Telecommunication Union (ITU) before and during a 
World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) seem 
complicated. They are somewhat complicated but 
they are understandable with a bit of background.

Each agenda item that will be decided at a WRC 
has been studied for at least 3 or 4 years 
leading up to a WRC. ITU Working Parties discuss 
the issues involved in the agenda item. 
Compatibility studies, sharing studies, 
experiments, etc. take place whenever needed so 
that discussions and decisions can be made based 
upon facts rather than opinions. Within a year 
prior to the start of a WRC an important meeting 
called the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM) 
occurs. The CPM report pulls together all of the 
information dealing with each of the agenda items 
and sets forth the various ways, if there is more 
than one, that an agenda item can be satisfied or 
decided. By the time of the CPM, most all of the 
arguments in favor of the agenda item and opposed 
to the agenda items have been thoroughly 
discussed in the many meetings that take place 
regarding each agenda item. When a national 
administration arrives at the WRC, decisions have 
generally been made by that administration 
whether to be in favor or opposed to any 
particular agenda items. However, it is usually 
not that clear cut. Some administrations may be 
in favor if certain adjustments or modifications 
are made to one or more of the proposed methods 
to satisfy the agenda item. In other words, 
discussions and negotiations really get started 
during the earlier stages of the WRC. For 
example, Administration X may withhold support or 
opposition on a specific proposal until other 
administrations agree to support Administration 
X.s position on other agenda items that Administration X is very interested in.

At the beginning of the WRC, each agenda item is 
assigned to a Sub-Working Group (SWG) to allow 
interested administrations and other interested 
attendees the opportunity to discuss the agenda 
item. This is the stage where most of the 
negotiations and compromises are made in order to 
arrive at a consensus as to how to decide the 
agenda item. The preferred way is to have a 
consensus by the SWG attendees. Many times the 
consensus is achieved by all parties realizing 
that the result may very well turn out to be a 
situation where "everyone is a little bit unhappy".

The flow of the work is that the output of the 
SWG goes to the Working Group level. After the WG 
(WG)level deals with the issue it moves to the 
Committee level. By the time the issue gets to 
the Committee level, revisions to the work done 
at the lower levels is generally not done. Once 
the agenda item passes the Committee level, it 
goes to the Plenary for two readings. If it 
passes the two readings the agenda item appears in the Final Acts of the WRC.

There are also times when a consensus by ALL 
parties is just not possible. An agenda item can 
move from the SWG stage to the Working Group 
stage where most administrations have reached a 
consensus on how to resolve the issue but there 
are still some administrations that are in favor of No Change (NOC).

Agenda Item 1.23. In the case of agenda item 
1.23, there was a good deal of support among 
administrations at the SWG level for a secondary 
allocation to amateur radio just below 500 kHz. 
However, there was strong resistance by several 
administrations to the allocation based upon a 
stated concern that amateur operation in that 
portion of the spectrum could cause interference 
to Non-Directional Beacons. SWG 4C3 (the SWG 
dealing with agenda item 1.23) met 12 times over 
a period of ten days trying to arrive at a 
consensus on 1.23. Finally, a consensus was 
achieved on the issue by adding various footnotes 
dealing with the allocation that satisfied most 
of the administrations opposing the allocation. 
At the end of the day, there were still a couple 
of administrations opposing the allocation. As a 
result, the SWG elevated the issue to the Working 
Group level with 2 options to satisfy the agenda item:

1) a secondary allocation to the amateur service 
in the band 472-479 kHz with certain operating 
conditions set forth in footnotes to the allocation, or

2.) No Change (in other words, no amateur allocation).

The proposal that has been agreed to by most 
administrations that support the amateur 
allocation calls for a worldwide secondary 
allocation to the amateur service at 472 to 479 
kHz with a power limit of 1 watt e.i.r.p., but 
with a provision for administrations to permit up 
to 5 watts e.i.r.p. for stations located more 
than 800 km from certain countries that wish to 
protect their aeronautical radionavigation 
service (non-directional beacons) from any 
possible interference. Proposed footnotes provide 
administrations with opportunities to opt out of 
the amateur allocation and/or to upgrade their 
aeronautical radionavigation service to primary 
if they wish to do so. In addition to these 
protections for aeronautical radionavigation, the 
amateur service must avoid harmful interference 
to the primary maritime mobile service.

At the Working Group meeting, there was no 
shifting of positions so the matter was elevated 
to the next level to Committee 4 with the same 2 
options. The Committee 4 meeting takes place on 
Tuesday, 7 February. I will report on the results 
of that Committee 4 meeting but based upon the 
results thus far, I am cautiously optimistic that 
the amateurs will have a new secondary allocation at 472-479 kHz.

Agenda Item 1.15. Another agenda item being 
carefully watched by the IARU is agenda item 1.15 
dealing with oceanographic radar. One of the 
candidate bands for the placement of 
oceanographic radar is 5.250 to 5.275 MHz. There 
have been a number of administrations that have 
granted amateurs access to spectrum around 5 MHz. 
In fact, one of the bands listed by IARU as a 
future allocation is 5 MHz. If oceanographic 
radar is operating in the 5.250-5.275 MHz band, 
that may impact the ability of the amateurs to 
obtain an allocation in that area. The candidate 
bands have not been finalized as yet at the WRC.

Rod Stafford W6ROD
IARU Secretary - Region 2
-- 
  **----**

Vernon Ikeda - VE2MBS/VE2QQ
Pointe-Claire, Québec
RAC Blog Editor/RAC E-News/Web News Bulletin Editor

  * * * *


----------
You are receiving this bulletin because you are 
subscribed to an electronic mailing list. For 
more information or to change your subscription 
please visit: http://rac.eton.ca/racbullemail.htm
[karc] Fwd: [RAC-Bulletin] [IARU-R2-News 160] Special WRC Report Number Two

Other related posts:
