Fourth and Final Report to the Administrative Council
1. Members of the Committee
The members of this Committee, known as the Future of the Amateur Services Committee ("FASC") are:
In addition, Dick Baldwin is an ex officio member of the Committee.
2. The Terms of Reference of the Committee
The terms of reference of the Committee are:
A Examine the international regulations governing the Amateur Service and the Amateur-Satellite (other than frequency allocations) with a view to formulating the changes, if any, that are desirable to properly reflect the objects, needs, obligations and privileges of the services for the next century, so that the services remain viable and valuable, meaningful and relevant to both the community and to those licensed in the services, having regard to
with a view to formulating appropriate changes (if any) to the Radio Regulations.
B Undertake its task:
all of the forgoing being an ongoing task bearing in mind the regional conferences and the likely agenda for WRC-99.
3. Participation in the preparation of this Report
Two members of the Committee, John Bazley, G3HCT and Terry Carrell, ZL3QL were not in attendance at the Region 2 Conference at Margarita Island.
They did not participate in the preparation of this Report. They have participated in the preparation of each of the earlier Reports and the Discussion Paper.
4. The Approach of the Committee
The Committee developed an approach and time table as follows:
The Committee received very many comments, all of which were carefully considered by all of the members of the Committee;
The Committee prepared a First Report, which was distributed prior to the Region 1 Conference in October 1996, and which summarised some of the points made in the comments and submissions received;.
The Report was considered by the Region 1 Conference in Tel Aviv in October 1996;
That Conference provided the first and only opportunity for the members of FASC to meet. One result was the formulation of an alternative draft of Article S 25 to provide an alternative approach to the matter;
A Second Report was prepared, reporting the conclusions of the Region 1 Conference, and the alternative draft of Article S25 developed by the Committee in Tel Aviv was offered for comment;
That Second Report was considered by the Region 3 Conference in Beijing in September 1997, and the alternative draft of Article S25 was supported with a number of changes;
A Third Report was prepared, reporting on the conclusions of the Region 3 Conference, and offering a revised draft of Article S25, incorporating the changes proposed at the Region 3 Conference;
It was the Second and Third Reports that were the basic documents considered by the Region 2 Conference, which is reported on below;
The original Discussion Paper and each of the Reports have been placed on the IARU Internet site, and comments and submissions have continued to be invited.
Now the task of formulating a global policy falls to the Administrative Council and this Report is offered to assist the Council in that task..
5. The Conclusions of the Region II Assembly
The work of FASC was referred to Committee A of he Region II conference, held between 27 September and 3 October 1998, at Margarita Island, Venezuela and on 2 October 1998, the General Assembly of the International Amateur Radio Union Region II passed the following resolution:
"IARU R-2, having considered the paper and reports prepared by the Future of Amateur Services Committee (FASC) and the conclusions of the IARU, Region 3 Conference, Beijing, 1997, supports changes having the effect of the version of Article S-25 incorporating the conclusions of the IARU, R-3 Conference as set out in the Third Report of the FASC
RESOLVES
That the XIII General Assembly of IARU Region II, supports changes having the effect of the version of the Article S-25 incorporating the conclusions of the IARU, R-3 Conference as set out in the Third Report of the FASC."
6. Should a Decision Now be Deferred?
As the agenda for WRC 99 no longer includes Article S25, and Article S25 is only on the preliminary agenda for WRC2001, which will almost certainly become WRC2002, the question must be asked "Should the Administrative Council delay making a decision, or even seek further consultation or review?"
It is our conclusion that the interests of the amateur services will be best met by adhering to the timetable we originally set.
The fact that a Region 1 conference has not discussed the formulations considered by Region 3 and Region 2 should not influence that conclusion. It has never been suggested that the Administrative Council is bound to adopt a position even considered by a regional conference, or by this Committee. If the matter is held over for further discussion by Region 1, if Region 1 offers any comment, why should not that comment be considered by Region 3 and then Region 2?
In any event, no society in any Region has been denied the opportunity to comment on the Reports, and indeed, one Region 1 member society, the RSGB, has commented on the alternative approach suggested by the Committee.
Our original timetable had the substantial disadvantage that with the AC adopting a policy immediately after the Region 2 Conference, there was no time to present the proposal to administrations or to vary the proposal to meet concerns that we accepted as legitimate.
Whatever policy is adopted by the AC, we believe that advancing that policy will be enhanced by its earlier, rather than later adoption.
We do not see any advantage in further discussion.
We believe that the matter should and can be addressed now.
7. The Committee's Recommendations
A The Definition of "Amateur Satellite Service"
The definitions are in Article 1, and so outside the scope of the present, even preliminary, agenda.
However, there is almost complete consensus that the definition of Amateur Satellite Service is defective. The definition is:
"Space stations" are defined by the Radio Regulations as a "station located on an object which is beyond, is intended to go beyond, or has been beyond, the major portion of the earth's atmosphere."
In the definition of the "amateur satellite service" the term "space stations" is qualified by the phrase "on earth satellites". That qualification is unnecessary and inappropriate as there should be no reason to confine the potential of amateur satellites to satellites in earth orbit.
We recommend that it become the policy of the IARU to seek the amendment of the definition of "Amateur Satellite Service" in S1.57 by the deletion of the words "on earth satellites".
B Article S25
The Committee in this Final Report sets out a formulation of Article S25 that it offers for the consideration of the Administrative Council, and comments as follows:
Detailed comments on the basis of this formulation are to be found in the Discussion Paper and the Second and Third Reports. They are not repeated.
We have no doubt that amateurs see the requirement for technical and operational qualification as the most important factor distinguishing the amateur service from other users of the spectrum, and the Committee's draft places that requirement as the first provision.
That requirement is mandatory.
The incorporation by reference of a recommendation will ensure the most flexible definition possible of at least a minimum level of qualification.
The nature of what may be transmitted by an amateur station is better defined and in a way that reflects what in fact is done today, and deals with coded messages in a way that also reflects the reality of today.
It introduces new provisions relating to emergency communications and the international recognition of amateur licenses in a way that the Committee believes does not impinge on the sovereignty of any country, and does not create any legal obligations on amateurs, and will hopefully be seen as provisions that facilitate desirable activities and desirable privileges.
It has regard to the principles of the simplification of the Radio Regulations by removing provisions that are today inappropriate in international regulations as being matter that should be addressed in national regulations, and provisions that repeat in different language provisions elsewhere in the Radio Regulations that already apply to the amateur services. The Committee believes that the substance of its draft Article S25 represents a simpler and more appropriate international regulation of the amateur services.
The Committee recommends that any policy adopted by the Administrative Council seeking any change to Article S25 should recognise the inevitability of language changes to accommodate concerns not perceived at this time, and any policy should be expressed ,in terms that make it clear that particular language is not the essence of the policy.
We recommend that it become the policy of the IARU to seek the amendment of Article S25 so that the basic international regulation of the amateur services are to the effect of version of Article S25 set out on the following page of this Final Report.
|
| |
| S25.1 | 1. Administrations shall verify the technical and operational qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur station. A person seeking a licence to operate an amateur station shall be required to demonstrate a knowledge of the topics specified in ITU-R Recommendation M-XXX. |
| S25.2 | 2. (1) Transmissions between amateur stations of
different countries shall be limited to communications incidental
to the purposes of the amateur service or of a personal character.
(2) Except with the authority of the relevant administration granted to meet a particular operational need, transmissions between amateur stations shall not be encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning. |
| S25.3 | 3. Administrations are urged to take the steps necessary to allow amateur stations to prepare for and meet communication needs in the event of a natural disaster. |
| S25.4 | 4. An administration may, without issuing a licence, permit a person who has been granted a license to operate an amateur station by another administration, to operate an amateur station while that person is temporarily in its territory, subject to such conditions or restrictions it may impose. |
| S25.5 | 5. The provisions of Section I of this Article shall apply equally, as appropriate, to the amateur-satellite service. |
| S25.6 | 6. Administrations authorising space stations in the amateur-satellite service shall ensure that sufficient earth command stations are established before launch to ensure that any harmful interference caused by emissions from a station in the amateur-satellite service can be immediately eliminated. |
8. An Explanation of the Proposed Process to be Followed
In order for Article S25 to be revised in any fashion it must first be placed on an agenda so that it may be considered in advance by Member States and other interested parties.
If IARU policy becomes, as FASC is recommending, one of incorporating by reference into the Radio Regulations an appropriate ITU-R Recommendation describing the technical and operational requirements for qualifying as a radio amateur, then it is necessary for the Administrative Council to formulate a plan for having in-place the mandatory form of a Recommendation when required.
One of the major benefits to the amateur services of the general concept outlined herein, is the opportunity for the IARU, as a Sector Member, to participate in the work of ITU-R Study Group 8 (SG 8) which has cognisance over amateur matters.
The status of the IARU, for example, is that while we are permitted to observe at WRCs with the agreement of the Conference, we attend Study Group meetings as a full partner with all rights of participation.
Recommendations are normally developed within Study Groups in order to provide either full or partial answer to a "Question." A Question is an approved query about some technical aspect of radiocommunication which requires study and the preparation of an answer.
Matters concerning the amateur services are considered within Working Party 8A, where the IARU is always active and has both credibility and acceptance.
As a result, while there can never be guarantees, it appears more probable that the IARU can satisfactorily influence the output product of a Study Group Working Party, avoiding the risks to the future of the amateur services inherent in the forum of a World Radiocommunication Conference when Article S25 will be taken up.
Therefore, for the reason cited, FASC repeats the proposition that the form of Article S25 approved at the Region 3 and Region 2 Conferences has the important advantage of transferring to a proper forum, discussion of the minimum technical and operational knowledge appropriate for qualification as a radio amateur.
|
|
|
|
|
|