Summary

  • ITU Document 67-E groups the 147 organizations as 96 meeting all five criteria, 16 not considered to meet one or more, and 35 that did not file a formal extension request.
  • The Secretary-General recommends extending the exemption of every organization in those three groups through 2031. That is a proposal for PP-26, not an adopted decision.

The question now before the Plenipotentiary Conference is not whether the Secretariat can sort the file. It has. The harder question is whether one renewal recommendation is sufficiently explained when the review itself records three different evidentiary positions.

A three-part record

The report, posted on 6 October as contribution 67-E, says the Secretariat reviewed all 147 organizations whose exemption from ITU membership fees is due for consideration for 2028–2031. Organizations were asked to confirm that they wanted an extension and provide information against the 2017 criteria. The Secretary-General sent the request in July, a reminder in August and a final follow-up to non-responders later that month.

The result is specific. Annex 2 lists 96 organizations that requested an extension, supplied information and were considered to meet every criterion. Annex 3 lists 16 that also requested an extension and supplied information but were not considered to meet one or more criteria. It names the criteria and gives short comments: examples include business-association status, insufficient international membership, or not being a member organization. Annex 4 lists 35 organizations that did not submit a formal request. The report does not describe those 35 as having failed the criteria; non-submission is a different status.

The five criteria test whether an organization works internationally on telecommunications, is a legally recognized nonprofit representing nonprofit members, has significant activity across multiple ITU Member States, gives ITU reciprocal participation at its meetings, and provides access to relevant documentation. ITU’s public rules describe reciprocity as mutual and similar benefits. The Plenipotentiary Conference decides which listed organizations continue to receive exemptions; the current Council may revoke an exemption if an entity no longer meets the criteria.

One recommendation across the groups

After setting out the three groups, the Secretary-General recommends that PP-26 extend all 147 exemptions for the next four-year period. The report says this recommendation takes account of views expressed in Council and the Council Working Group on Finance and Human Resources, as well as relative costs and benefits. It does not propose a separate renewal outcome for each group.

That approach follows a difficult history. In 2019, Council applied the revised 2017 criteria to new requests while keeping the existing list as a transitional, grandfathered measure. A 2022 review of 132 organizations produced a more differentiated recommendation: approve 84, refer 19 for further review and do not renew 29. Delegations raised concerns about removing exemptions from current participants because of their contribution to ITU and their role in regional representation. Council referred the matter to its finance and human-resources working group. That group did not conclude the discussion; the status quo continued.

The 2026 review revisits the full list, but again places continuity in one recommendation.

The financial section gives no quantified revenue case. It says extending every exemption would have no direct financial implications; strict application of the 2017 criteria might produce limited revenue if several organizations chose to pay. The report names no amount. The decision is therefore also about how PP-26 weighs reciprocity, participation and consistency between paying and exempt organizations, not a forecast of a specific budget gain.

PP-26 begins on 9 November. Until delegates act, the Secretary-General’s recommendation remains pending. The public record gives them a useful basis for discussion: a criteria-based list, criterion-level comments for the 16, and a named list of the 35 without a request. The decision should make clear whether all three groups receive the same treatment and how the published criteria support that choice.

Sources