RCC wants Council approval of ITU project expert criteria

The ITU Has a Project. RCC Wants to Inspect the Expert Checklist

Why it matters

A new RCC proposal would put the criteria for selecting ITU project experts before the Council, while giving particular weight to local and regional people who already lead work inside the Union.

Daniel Kade26 October 2026 at 13:04 UTCReading Time 2 minLast update: 26 October 2026

Conceptual illustration of the proposed Council review of expert-selection criteria for ITU projects.

Summary

RCC proposes that the ITU Secretary-General bring project expert selection criteria to the Council for review and approval.
Its draft also singles out local and regional experts who represent ITU members, including Member States, and hold leading positions in relevant working bodies.

The network project has a blueprint, a budget and a grand name. Then someone has to choose the person who will make it work. That last choice is the subject of RCC addendum 14, posted by the ITU on 23 October. It would add an instruction to Resolution 157: the Secretary-General, working closely with the Development Bureau director, would submit information on criteria for selecting project experts to the Council for its consideration and approval. The Council gets to inspect the ruler; the text does not ask it to interview every engineer.

The same draft sharpens a second passage. The 2022 resolution already urges use of local and regional experts, regardless of age, so projects can draw on nearby knowledge and endure after the implementation period. RCC would especially draw on experts representing ITU members, including Member States, who occupy leading posts in relevant ITU working bodies. A technical record and a seat at an institutional table would both matter to the proposed pool.

That combination invites a practical question before any project starts: what is the qualification being bought? Experience with a country's networks, leadership in an ITU group, and the ability to deliver a project are different credentials. The proposal names a preferred source of expertise but gives no scoring formula and no individual appointments. Council approval of the criteria would make that choice reviewable at the level where the rule is set.

Resolution 157 already calls for qualified internal or external staff when needed, agreed priorities and financing, regular project disclosures and an open project database. RCC's new point is earlier in the chain: who can plausibly become the expert whose work later fills those reports. The November Plenipotentiary Conference will decide whether to add this selection step to the Union's project mandate.