Proposed ITU Mark Program Draws Mixed Views

A proposed ITU Mark program suggests that telecom buildouts conforming to ITU-T recommendations “will greatly increase the chances of end-to-end interoperability among products from different vendors,” Germany said, citing the program developed by the ITU-T secretariat. The program suggests “conformance with specifications, for instance on energy efficiency, will also give consumers more information and confidence when selecting products,” Germany said. The mark program was developed in response to requests by developing countries that seek ITU help figuring out whether individual telecom products comply with standards, an ITU spokesman said.

An obligatory ITU mark regime can’t be set up under European law, Germany said. And the country said it doesn’t see the advantage of a new, voluntary marking system other than the CE Mark for Europe. ITU marking could contradict the voluntary nature of ITU-T recommendations, Germany said. The proposed mark system “would be of no use to market participants, notably the manufacturers,” Germany said. The additional expense could push companies away from the ITU and its work, producing an effect contrary to the one desired, Germany said.

Japan supported the ITU Mark program, it said in a filing over the weekend. “The ITU Mark should guarantee the interconnectivity/interoperability of ICT products in accordance with ITU Recommendations as far as feasible,” the filing said. Detailed and definitive study on protocols is crucial to assuring interconnectivity and interoperability between data and communications technology products, it said.

ITU members should “solve the problems regarding the ITU Mark program,” Japan said. The ITU-T study group dealing with protocols should study the “details of protocols in order to introduce the ITU Mark program,” it said, and an expert group is needed. “The ITU Mark program should be consistent with domestic systems/laws/regulations of ITU Member countries.”

Ghana supported the ITU Mark effort, suggesting setting up a group to study the mark and start a trial. The proposed group would clarify the mark’s purpose, objective and financial implications, study various national conformance systems, identify standards and equipment for a trial and test laboratories. Identifying developing country requirements also is needed, along with study of legal considerations, elaboration of the application review process, documentation, fees, the process for dealing with challenges and reports of misuse, and risk management assessment, Ghana said.

Nokia Siemens Networks and Ericsson also raised concerns with the proposal for an ITU Mark, the companies said on behalf of 40 national digital-technology associations from 28 European countries with over 61 company members of the European Information and Communications Technology Industry Association. The voluntary nature of ITU-T recommendations, on telecom equipment and audiovisual communications should remain a cornerstone of the organization, the companies said. “We believe that the creation of an ITU Mark to certify conformance to ITU recommendations raises many delicate questions and could be counterproductive to the goal of promoting development of the telecommunications sector globally,” the companies said.

EICTA members recognize many developing countries lack the technical expertise needed to procure fully interoperable equipment, the companies said. “The ITU proposal unfortunately does nothing to address the root of this problem, empowering developing countries by building up technical expertise … As proposed, the ITU Mark with its strong link to a certification regime would constitute a further layer of approvals, on top of the requirements including certification already imposed by most Member States through their Technical Regulation for market entry of products,” the companies said.

The inspiration for the ITU mark may be laudable, said an official familiar with the World Trade Organization’s Technical Barriers to Trade agreement. Developing countries need help perhaps because their governments have various systemic regulatory problems, he said. The principles in the TBT agreement are broad, the official said. Only two WTO dispute cases have been brought, he said.

Nokia Siemens Networks and Ericsson also raised concerns with an Africa Union common proposal for ITU-style approval of telecommunication equipment, the companies said on behalf EICTA. The African proposal raises the question of how to ensure equipment compliance with countries’ technical regulation, the companies said. The approvals system and the need for technical competence and resources at national level are two crucial aspects, the companies said.

Technical regulation should be kept to what’s needed to fulfill a legitimate objective, the companies said, citing the TBT agreement. Most ITU-T recommendations cover aspects not suitable or appropriate for inclusion in national technical regulations, the companies said. Regulatory approvals for equipment instead refer to standards from other bodies, notably International Electrotechnical Commission for safety and electromagnetic compatibility, the companies said. “Thus any assistance or activity from ITU with regards to approvals would only be relevant for a very limited number of Recommendations,” the companies said.

Problems of market surveillance arise with any approval system, the companies said. “A very strict type approvals system will not prevent rogue suppliers from placing non- compliant products on the marketplace.” The possibilities of technical assistance should first be fully explored through the WTO, the companies said.