WIREDGOV

Philip Marnick, Ofcom's Spectrum Group Director responds to Spectrum Policy Forum's letter identifying views and recommendations around representation in international spectrum forums.

Dear David

Thank you for your letter of 24th April to Ed Vaizey and Sharon White, on which I was copied.

We welcome the views of the SPF in respect of the UK processes and preparation for WRCs and are pleased to note the positive comments regarding the results achieved at WRC-15. After the conference Ofcom received many letters and emails from stakeholders congratulating us on the success of WRC15. We agree with the SPF that WRC-15 was a success for the UK and believe that the UK preparatory process contributed to this success. We always undertake a lessons learnt process to identify how we can do even better in the future.

We do agree with the SPF that WRCs are becoming more challenging. With more participants and an ever greater number of interests looking to drive particular issues, the ability to adapt and garner support for positons is even more important today than ever before.

Providing spectrum to support the wide range of applications and services which are an integral part of our everyday lives is becoming increasingly challenging, so achieving optimal results for the UK from international spectrum negotiations is ever more important. Ofcom takes its role representing the UK extremely seriously and we put great effort into our work in the ITU, CEPT, EU and other relevant international organisations. It is an integral part of our spectrum management work. These efforts need to be addressed strategically and we take great pride in the expert knowledge that we have built up across the institutions which, combined with our technical expertise and knowledge of the UK market, we believe enables us to effectively achieve and protect UK interests.

However, the situation is not static and Ofcom needs to ensure that UK preparatory processes evolve in order to keep pace with market developments. We particularly welcome the views of the SPF and the 11 recommendations you have put forward. Ofcom has considered these recommendations and I provide a response to each in the attached annex.

I am very happy to discuss these points with you further and look forward to continuing to engage with all stakeholders and welcome their support and efforts in ensuring that the UK remains one of the world’s leaders on spectrum.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Marnick
Group Director, Spectrum

The full letter from Philip Marnick, Group Director, Spectrum Group, Ofcom can be download at the end of the page.

Ofcom’s response to the Spectrum Policy Forum’s recommendations relating to international representation on spectrum matters

Recommendation 1:

Ofcom and Government should consider how all the categories of interest of UK businesses in spectrum can be considered together during the development of UK positions for a WRC – for example, by holding joint or parallel consultations.

Ofcom agrees that all the interests of UK businesses in spectrum should be taken into account. We regularly engage with all sectors with an interest in radiocommunications both through our spectrum events and the various engagement groups we have established. We also conduct strategic reviews of various sectors. For WRC15, Ofcom consulted more extensively than ever before as part of our preparations, issuing a consultation document and two update documents covering UK positions. We also issued separate call-for-inputs covering particular high priority items. We believe this wide ranging engagement facilitated input from all radio sectors interests in an open and transparent way.

In addition to the updates, consultations and call-for-inputs, we also have a well-established process for stakeholder engagement for WRCs through the IFPG committee structure. We intend to continue this approach for WRC-19 with the relevant IFPG Working Groups meeting before the corresponding CPG Project Team meetings. Recognising the need for future engagement, we will ensure IFPG meetings are open to all UK stakeholders.

Recommendation 2:

Ofcom should, in consultation with relevant UK Stakeholders, start the development of high-level policy objectives for the agenda items of a WRC immediately after the preceding WRC (which agrees the agenda for the following one), before the preparatory work in CEPT or ITU gets underway.

We agree that there is advantage in developing high-level policy objectives for WRC Agenda Items quickly. At the same time there are often a range of factors that need to be considered before a UK position can be reached and it is important to seek input from stakeholders. We need to recognise developments, both in industry and in the positions taken by other countries and regional groups, to ensure we are well positioned and can achieve the optimum outcomes for the UK.

Recommendation 3:

Ofcom and the Government Departments responsible for the management of the IFPG committee should consider:

i)     Opening more of its meetings to industry stakeholders (as was the case before WRC-12).

Ofcom held a number of UK delegation meetings prior to WRC-15 which were open to all (Gov, UK stakeholders etc.). We continue to believe that UK policy positions on individual Agenda Items should be developed and communicated through the responsible IFPG working groups. While we would hope not to repeat all of these discussions in the IFPG, we do note the interest in having an overarching Group which is open to stakeholders. We will therefore ensure IFPG meetings are open to all UK stakeholders.

ii)     Making the minutes of its other meetings available to industry stakeholders (redacted if necessary).

IFPG working group minutes are already made available to stakeholders. We will happily take the same approach with IFPG meetings.

Recommendation 4: The skill set of future UK delegations to a WRC should be reinforced to include people with experience and contacts in diplomacy, both in the Conference itself and through Government channels (e.g. British embassies in key countries).

Ofcom works closely with Government in respect of UK representation for WRCs, including with the Foreign Office and UK diplomats and embassies overseas when appropriate. Often discussions at WRC are of a highly technical nature and this can limit the opportunity for broader diplomatic engagement. However, we agree there may be occasions where diplomatic efforts may help to secure UK positions, one such example being Leap Seconds at WRC-15. We will continue to leverage the UK diplomatic capability required to achieve UK interests.

Recommendation 5:

UK spokespeople should receive training in advocacy and negotiating skills when they take up these roles.

We agree that advocacy and negotiating skills are an important aspect of UK representation work. Ofcom conducts training in these areas and also promotes learning through practical experience. We will continue to investigate such opportunities. As part of this effort we brought in expertise to the WRC15 team to assist in further enhancing our skills.

Recommendation 6:

The UK relies on CEPT Coordinators for WRC agenda items to present its positions and lead negotiations at the Conference. Therefore, diplomacy and advocacy skills should be regarded as important attributes in the choice of these coordinators, in addition to subject matter expertise.

It is important that CEPT coordinators are able to demonstrate both technical competency and diplomacy. In the majority of cases we believe CEPT appoints appropriate candidates for the roles and it is worth noting that the CEPT is widely regarded as the most effective regional preparatory group. The UK has successfully secured CEPT coordinator roles for some specific high profile issues for WRC-19, including Agenda Item 1.5 (Earth Stations in Motion), Agenda Item 1.13 (IMT”5G” above 24 GHz) and Agenda Item 1.16 (RLANs at 5 GHz).

Recommendation 7:

Ofcom should consider the designation of industry coordinators at the WRC for appropriate agenda items, who would be a single point of contact between the UK Coordinator and the industry stakeholders. If there are distinct groups of UK stakeholders for an agenda item, more than one industry coordinator may be needed.

We welcome industry working together and have no difficulty with industry appointing an industry coordinator for issues discussed at or before a WRC. We would want to ensure,however, that this does not limit the ability for all stakeholders to engage with the UK preparatory process and have contact, as appropriate, with the UK coordinator.

Recommendation 8:

Ofcom should consider how it can make more use of industry delegates at WRCs. In particular, Ofcom should seek to ensure that there is a UK delegate at all meeting sessions of interest, and should request industry delegates to attend if it does not have resources to do so itself.

The intelligence and assistance provided by stakeholder participants both in the preparation for and at WRCs is critical to enable the UK to achieve its objectives. At WRC-15 information provided by UK stakeholders, especially in relation to developments in other regions, contributed to the UK’s success at the Conference.

In most cases we try to ensure an Ofcom colleague is available to attend all meetings which are of interest to the UK. However, with the number of meetings sometimes taking place in parallel at a WRC this is not always possible. Therefore, when appropriate the UK Head or Deputy Head of Delegation may authorise a stakeholder to attend and speak on behalf of the UK in-line with the UK brief. Such situations did occasionally arise at WRC-15 and we believe the process worked well.

Recommendation 9:

At WRC-15, industry participants on the UK delegation were excluded from many CEPT coordination meetings, whereas industry participants on other delegations were able to attend. There should be a consistent policy on attendance.

The CEPT meetings at WRC were heavily attended and at points the CPG Chair/CEPT coordinator requested that only administration heads of delegations or coordinators attend. This was primarily for logistics (room size) but also reflected the need to address some discussions in smaller groups in order to try to help decision making.

It is true that some administrations took a different approach and permitted selective industry participation. This is a matter for them and the meeting Chair. However it is important to note that the UK has one of the largest delegations within CEPT and we were keen to ensure that we treat all UK stakeholders fairly. Given this, it was not possible for UK industry stakeholders to attend some CEPT HoD meetings.

Recommendation 10:

The terms of reference of CPG and its project teams should include consideration of proposals from other Regional Groups and countries. This is particularly important in relation to the agenda for the next conference, where most proposals emerge quite late in the preparatory process.

As one of the better prepared regional groups, CEPT does indeed present its positions to the ITU in good time. In many instances this is an advantage for CEPT as we see other regional groups taking account of the CEPT view in the development of their own positions.

We do not agree that other regional groups, that submit proposals after CEPT, are any better prepared. Indeed, we generally believe that CEPT is among the most effective of the regionalgroups. That said, Ofcom does agree that there is benefit in studying the positions of other regions prior to the start of the Conference and considering any implications for UK and CEPT positions. Ofcom did this for WRC-15 and it is something we always do. Given timings, it may not be always possible to do this at a formal CPG meeting but this does not mean that issues cannot be bought to the attention of CEPT co-ordinators. We consider that stakeholders can play a key role in terms of highlighting any such issues and noting any corresponding implications so that these can be addressed quickly by UK and/or CEPT at the Conference.

Recommendation 11:

The current documentation on the representation of UK in CEPT and ITU should be reviewed, updated, and consolidated into a single document.

Ofcom is pleased that the process for representing the UK on international spectrum issues appears to be working well. We believe that the Government Direction and accompanying MoUs are actually very clear in relation to Ofcom’s role and responsibilities. However if Government wished to update the relevant documentation then Ofcom would of course be happy to participate in the process.

The full letter from Philip Marnick, Group Director, Spectrum Group, Ofcom can be download below.

The UK SPF will be following up in the next few weeks and in due course there will be more in the SPF programme of activities regarding the international and UHF work.

Further information regarding the UK Spectrum Policy Forum is available.