Summary

  • RCC member states propose adding a prior-period attendance check to the qualifications for chairs and vice-chairs seeking a second term in ITU advisory or study groups.
  • The draft says candidates below half of the meetings should normally be avoided, with circumstances considered. The existing rule already applies a similar guide to vice-chair re-election.

A title card can stay on the table even when its owner rarely takes the seat. The RCC’s draft revision to ITU Resolution 208 puts a simple question into the next appointment round: if a chair or vice-chair wants another term, how often did that person show up?

The ITU register lists the Russian-language text as contribution 94, addendum 22, posted on 23 October. The substantive new line is in Annex 2, where the ITU describes qualifications for its sector advisory and study-group chairs and vice-chairs. For a second-term nomination, the RCC says candidates who took part in fewer than half the relevant group’s meetings during the previous study period should normally be avoided, with prevailing circumstances taken into account. The words describe a presumption in selection, not an automatic disqualification or a judgement on anyone named in the filing.

The attendance idea has a history. Resolution 208 as adopted in 2022 already tells groups to note absent leaders and ask the relevant Bureau director to work with members to encourage participation. It directs the directors to report chairs’ and vice-chairs’ meeting participation to assemblies and conferences. Members who nominated a leader are invited to act if that person misses two meetings in a row. Annex 3 even says vice-chair candidates for re-election who joined fewer than half of all meetings should normally be avoided. The RCC’s twist is to put the half-meetings guide in Annex 2’s broader qualifications, where chair and vice-chair appointments are considered together.

That placement matters at the appointment table. The 2022 text weighs expertise, management ability, continuity, geographic balance and room for developing-country participation. An attendance record is evidence about whether a candidate could do the job, not a verdict on expertise or a substitute for fair regional representation. The RCC has given delegates a default to explain when they renew a leader who was absent more often than present.

Doha must decide whether to add that line. The first real test will come when a returning candidate’s participation report and the nomination list sit side by side. The interesting question is whether delegates use both documents, and how they record a justified exception.

Official sources