Summary

  • ITU Document 53-E says a “major” organizational change affects more than half the duties and responsibilities of a regular-budget fixed-term D-1 or D-2 post.
  • The report describes a route from Human Resources Management Department and Coordination Committee review to a Council decision; PP-26 is asked to note the report, not adopt a new threshold.

The percentage is easy to misread. ITU’s report does not measure how many employees move, how much a budget changes or how much of an organization chart is redrawn. It measures a change in duties attached to a specific post: regular-budget, fixed-term D-1 or D-2. The threshold is strictly more than 50 per cent.

That distinction matters because the test sits at a decision boundary. Article 4, No. 70(4) of the ITU Convention gives the Council authority over proposals for major organizational changes within the General Secretariat and Sector Bureaux. The Secretary-General submits them after Coordination Committee consideration. Document 53-E says a proposal meeting its test is recommended by the Human Resources Management Department, considered by the Coordination Committee and then put to the Council by the Secretary-General.

Changes to a department or Bureau’s mandate or structure count only insofar as they affect the relevant posts. Duties therefore act as a proxy for when a structural shift reaches Council review. The report separates that role from delegated post-management powers: Resolutions 1107 and 1108 permit the Secretary-General, subject to their conditions and Coordination Committee consultation, to reclassify or upgrade existing posts and create or abolish General Service and Professional posts. In discussing the threshold, the report specifically points to G-1 through P-5 actions under Resolution 1108.

Document 53-E is a Secretary-General note dated and posted on 5 October 2026. It responds to §10.6 of the chair’s report on the Council Working Group on Financial and Human Resources, C26/50(Rev.1), for further discussion at PP-26. Its action line invites delegates to note the report. It does not present a PP-26 amendment or record a conference decision. PP-26 was scheduled to begin on 9 November.

The paper explains the percentage but leaves the measurement procedure open. It does not say how duties are compared before and after a change, which date is the baseline, whether changes affecting several posts are aggregated, or what record supports the calculation. Those are questions about the report’s explanation, not evidence that ITU lacks an internal method. The document describes no specific restructuring and promises no savings; its financial-implications field is marked not applicable.

The task for PP-26 is narrow: decide whether the explanation makes the boundary between delegated management and Council review clear enough. Taking note of an explanation is not the same as adopting a new rule.

Sources