Summary

  • The PP-26 page sets 23 October as the deadline for invited written answers to role-specific questions for candidates to five elected management posts. It says questions were scheduled to go to candidates by personal email on 13 October; that timetable is not a delivery receipt.
  • Answers are capped at 1,000 words, may use any of ITU’s six official languages and should avoid footnotes and hyperlinks. The linked pages do not specify a public register for responses or non-responses.
  • The questions can help readers compare candidates, but ITU Member States retain electoral authority: each has one vote, subject to voting-rights and accreditation requirements.

The answer deadline is public; delivery is not

Five days before the stated deadline, the PP-26 candidate-interviews page sets a clear timetable. After nominations closed on 12 October, the ITU editorial team would ask candidates for the Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General and three Bureau Director posts to answer a standard set of questions. The page says those questions were to be sent to each candidate’s personal email on 13 October, with answers invited by 23:59 hours CET on Friday, 23 October.

The distinction between a schedule and a receipt matters. The public page describes when the email was to go out; it does not provide delivery confirmation. It also calls for candidates to be invited to submit answers, rather than stating that a response is compulsory. The deadline is therefore a checkpoint in a published process, not proof that every candidate received the questions or will answer them.

The five sets share a frame but not a script. Each begins by asking for a candidate’s three priorities and how to achieve them, then turns to the office. The Secretary-General questions cover cooperation after 2030, artificial-intelligence coordination and UN reform. The Deputy Secretary-General set asks how to coordinate the three Bureaux and improve accountability. Radiocommunication candidates face questions on the transition to 6G and outer space; the Standardization Bureau set asks about technical standards and AI; and the Development Bureau set focuses on inclusive access and least developed countries. The individual question sets cover five posts: Secretary-General, Deputy Secretary-General, Radiocommunication Bureau Director, Telecommunication Standardization Bureau Director, and Telecommunication Development Bureau Director. The official candidate roster lists candidates by post.

A common format needs a visible record

The response rules impose a 1,000-word ceiling, excluding the questions. Candidates are asked to write plainly for general readers, define acronyms and leave out footnotes and hyperlinks. They may respond in any of ITU’s six official languages and are encouraged to choose the language in which they write most comfortably. A compact answer can travel across languages more easily than a long campaign document, while the role-specific prompts preserve differences between jobs.

The public instructions stop before the publication step. The linked interview and election-procedure pages do not say where completed answers will appear, how late submissions will be labeled, or how a candidate who does not respond will be distinguished from one whose answer has not yet been posted. That is a limit in the published rules, not evidence that no answers exist elsewhere.

This distinction will matter when voters assess the material. The ITU’s election guide says Member States cast the votes, one per State, and must retain voting rights and properly accredit their delegations. The interview process can supply information to that electorate; neither the editorial team nor an answer itself decides the election. PP-26’s top-post elections are scheduled to begin on 12 November in Doha.

Before the 23 October cutoff, the useful public signal is not simply whether a candidate’s answer is short. It is whether the same questions, receipt status, submission date and language can be checked across all five posts. Without that record, an absent answer remains ambiguous: it could reflect a non-response, an email problem or a publication delay. The ITU’s published timetable creates the checkpoint; a candidate-by-candidate response record would make it auditable.