-1-

Regional Radiocommunication Conference (RRC-06)
(Second Session)
Geneva, 15 May – 16 June 2006 /
Document CNG4/4
24 May 2006
Original: English
CNG 4
CNG 4 Progress report 2

In accordance with the directives emphasized by the Chairman of the Conference during the seventh Plenary meeting, and confirmed and detailed by the Chairman of Committee 4 during the seventh meeting of Committee 4, and following the guidelines that appear in document DT/31, the CNG 4 carried out its internal work and established the situation clarified in items 1 to 3 below.

1.  Identification of difficult coordination and negotiation zones

Identification of the reasons of difficulties

Identification of the zones where the dialog is not established

The difficult coordination and negotiation zones involving Administrations from the CNG 4 can be grouped into two categories: the “Difficult zones inside the CNG 4” and “Difficult zones involving Administrations from other CNGs”.

Tables 1 and 2 below present these two categories, sorted by the descending level of difficulty on a scale from 5 to 1, showing in each case the list of involved Administrations and summarizing the difficult negotiation subjects as well as some of the remarks and “suggested” solutions by some Administrations.

-1-

Table 1 - Difficult coordination and negotiation zones inside CNG 4
Level of difficulty* / Involved CNG 4 Administrations / Reasons for difficulty / Remarks and/or suggested solutions
5 /
ARS, BHR, IRN, OMA, QAT, UAE
/ -  The issue of equitable access
There has been no agreement yet on the concept of equitable access..
-  The reduction of requirements
-  The modification of the characteristics of the requirements
-  The use of different tools
-  The specification of “single” channels rather than the use of the full band or ranges
-  No agreement on the value of 3dB for the margin with some Administrations / There have been suggestions from one Administration to consider “band segmentation”. However, this could not be agreed on since it is not optimum.
In addition to the ITU Planning software, several Administrations are using their own tools. However, these tools are different and it seems difficult for some Administrations to rely on some other’s tools. However, an exchange of “knowledge” and expertise” is undergoing.
Some Administrations expressed their concern about the fact that, even for the second iteration, some other Administrations requirements are still specifying ranges of acceptable channels. It has been suggested to continue using AD for these cases for the second iteration, waiting for more negotiations to take place on that subject.
4 /
IRN, IRQ
3 /
ARS, KWT
ARS, YEM
2 /
ERI, DJI, YEM
/ -  DJI and YEM are concerned by the absence of ERI / The absence of some Administrations is still a matter of concern, as the negotiations with these Administrations become more and more “urgent”.
2 /
IRQ, SYR
/ -  A high level of interference between some requirements / The two Administrations are negotiating these cases and discussion is undergoing to try to find a solution based on different acceptable margins.
Table 2 - Difficult coordination and negotiation zones involving Administrations from CNG 4
With Administrations from other CNGs
Level of difficulty* / Involved CNG 4 Administrations / Administrations from other CNG’s / Reasons for difficulty / Remarks and/or suggested solutions
2 /
SYR
/ TUR, JOR / -  A high level of interference between some requirements / The Administrations are negotiating these cases and discussion is undergoing to try to find a solution based on different acceptable margins.
2 /
SYR
/ AZE, JOR, TUR / -  Mismatching AD submitted to the first iteration, and already agreed between Administrations / The Administrations are negotiating these cases and investigating the reasons for this, in order to correct the situation for the next iteration.
2 /
DJI
/ ETH / -  DJI is concerned by the absence of ETH / The absence of some Administrations is still a matter of concern, as the negotiations with these Administrations become more and more “urgent”.
2 /
IRN
/ ARM, AZE / -  Difficulties of different types / The Administrations are negotiating and solutions are underway.

-1-

2.  Evaluation of the achieved progress in negotiations in view of the second iteration

It is to be noted that negotiation and coordination in CNG4 is progressing and that the communication is established between all involved Administrations.

As a result of this negotiation and coordination process, and in view of preparing for the second iteration, the following three categories can be identified (Table 3 below).

Table 3 – Actions taken by Administrations in CNG 4
The following Administrations expressed their intention to “modify” their requirements in order to improve the plan / ARS,
BHR,
DJI,
IRQ,
IRN,
KWT,
LBN,
OMA,
QAT,
UAE,
YEM / The intended modifications of requirements involve the following aspects of the characteristics:
-  Reduction in the power
-  Changes in the used antenna pattern
-  Reduction of the antenna height
-  Changes in the antenna directivity
-  Changes in the distribution of the frequency channels
-  Channel specification
The following Administrations expressed their intention to reduce their requirements in order to improve the plan / DJI
The following Administrations expressed the fact that they will not modify any of their requirements / SYR

3.  Examining individual Administrations situation

As suggested during the COM 4 Steering Group meeting, the study of the “stand-alone” cases for every Administration in CNG 4 is undergoing, in order to examine the availability of the necessary spectrum and, eventually, the excess in requirements, when taking into account the requirements from that Administration only. This examination is done using the ITU planning software, not taking into account the ADs. The results of this examination will be given to the Chairman of Committee 4 in due time.