3.2.2 Regional Frameworks

Europe

i. Regional Framework

Beginning in the mid 1990s, the European Commission’s Convergence Green Paper1 commenced the policy formulation debate on the regulatory implications of convergence. This process resulted in the 1999 Review2 that examined the existing regulatory framework for telecommunications, and presented a series of policy proposals for a comprehensive cross-border regulatory framework covering all transmission networks and services. As a result thereof, in 2002, the EC approved a new regulatory framework (NRF) consisting of a Framework Directive and four principal specific directives:

1. the directive on the authorization of electronic communications networks and services (Authorization Directive);
2. the directive on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive);
3. the directive on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive); and
4. the directive concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (Data Privacy Directive) (hereinafter the Specific Directives).3

Also part of the NRF are the Commission Recommendation on Relevant Markets and the Commission Guidelines on Market Analysis which directs regulatory authorities to conduct market analysis of specific markets that may be susceptible to regulation.4

Specifically, the NRF seeks to achieve “sustained effective competition without on-going regulatory intervention”5 by removing regulation where competition has been determined to be effective and refocusing regulation where it does not exist. The general goals of the NRF are to encourage competition in the electronic communications markets, to improve the functioning of the internal market, and to guarantee basic user interests that would not be guaranteed by market forces.

The NRF is intended to be technology neutral, leaving behind such concepts as voice telephony and the distinctions between fixed and mobile communications previously relied upon by the EU for its telecommunications liberalization process during the 1990s. This is a corollary of the lessons derived from convergence, as it has been recognized that rigid regulatory concepts cannot evolve at the same pace as that of technological changes. The Framework Directive stresses the need for the EU member states to ensure that national regulatory authorities make regulation technologically neutral, “that is to say that it neither imposes nor discriminates in favor of the use of a particular type of technology.”6 It should be noted, however, that technological neutrality does not preclude member states from promoting specific services where this is deemed justified, (e.g., digital television as a means for increasing spectrum efficiency).

A relevant aspect of the NRF is that the EU has separated the regulation of transmission from the regulation of content. Therefore, content of services delivered over electronic communications networks using electronic communications services, such as broadcasting content, is excluded from the scope of the framework.7

ii. Regional Regulatory/Supervisory Body

There is no European-wide regulatory authority, but the NRF created the European Regulators Group (ERG),8 composed of the heads of the national regulatory authorities (NRAs) of the member states to ensure cooperation and coordination between such NRAs and the EC. One of the ERG’s main duties is to achieve consistent applications of the provisions of the NRF throughout the EU.9 The ERG plays an active role in the implementation and harmonization of the NRF, through the issuance of non-binding recommendations and common positions that serve as NRF implementation guidelines, with the objective of achieving of regulatory harmonization.

For example, in 2004, the ERG in conjunction with the European Commission Services Directorate-General (DG) Information Society and DG Competition issued a Common Position on the Approach to Appropriate Remedies in the New Regulatory Remedies (the Common Position). The Common Position seeks a “consistent and harmonized approach to the application of remedies by NRAs” particularly where market failures hinder competition in the market.10 While this document is non-binding to the NRAs, it has been actively used as an implementation guide in the imposition of remedies where competition problems have been found to exist.

iii. Regional Harmonization Efforts

EC recently proposed the i2010 – European Information Society 2010, a strategic framework seeking to “build towards an integrated approach to information society and audiovisual media policies in the EU.”11 Specifically, the EC recognizes that to address digital convergence, EU rules on information society and media should be consistent, and as a result proposes the following general policies: “(i) completion of Single European Information Space which promotes an open and competitive single market for information society and media (ii) strengthening innovation and investment in ICT research to promote growth and more and better jobs; (ii) achieving an inclusive European Information Society that promotes growth and jobs in a manner that is consistent with sustainable development and that prioritizes better public services and quality of life.”12 The Single European Information Space seeks to accelerate the economic benefits of digital convergence through various measures, including a review of the electronic communications framework in 2006, modernizing EU rules on audiovisual services, and defining a new efficient spectrum management strategy in 2005.

All countries seeking accession to the European Union are required to align their legislation to the acquis communautaire, (i.e., the entire body of European laws, including treaties, regulations and directives passed by the European Union and decisions of the European Court of Justice). For many candidate countries with transitional economies, negotiating and adopting Chapter 19 of the acquis (the telecommunications and IT chapter) requires significant regulatory reform to accommodate the telecommunications acquis. Implementation of acquis required the establishment of an independent telecommunications regulatory authority and a “separation of policy and law making authorities from ownership interests.” As such, candidates are required to:

• Adopt a national telecommunications policy for the development of the sector consistent with EC policy;
• Prepare market players for the pressure of competition expected when they join the EU;
• Prepare the telecommunications market through the transposition and implementation of EC legislation, in particular through price rebalancing;
• Ensure the objective enforcement of the regulatory framework through an adequately resourced and well-trained independent regulatory authority; and
• Address the communications needs of under-developed regions, especially the adoption of a universal service policy.13

MERCOSUR

i. Regional Framework

Mercado Común del Sur (Common Market of Southern Cone or MERCOSUR) created in 1995, is the economic block formed by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, with Bolivia, Peru, and Chile as associate member states. The MERCOSUR treaty seeks commercial integration among member countries and in particular (i) the free movement of goods and services among the signatory countries; (ii) the coordination of macroeconomic policies in communications; and (iii) the harmonization of national legislation in the relevant areas to strengthen the integration process.14 MERCOSUR does not have a single body of telecommunications rules or directives. Instead, through its regional institutional process, decisions issued by the Common Market Council15 on relevant commercial matters governed under the MERCOSUR treaty are later adopted into the national legislation of the member states.

ii. Regional Regulator/Supervisory Body

The Common Market Group of MERCOSUR established Working Subgroup 1 (SGT1), which is responsible for the negotiation of communication related matters under the treaty (i.e., postal services, broadcasting, radio communications, and public telecommunications services). The Common Market Group issued a negotiating directive for SGT1 instructing it to identify adequate steps for harmonization and consolidation of rules and practices in telecommunications.16 The areas subject to review by SGTI included:

• Ongoing identification of spectrum bands that could be subject to harmonization;
• Compilation and consolidation of laws and telecommunications rates of each member state;
• Advance mobile telecommunications services;
• Use of numbering resources within MERCOSUR;
• Convergence of telecommunications networks and services;
• Definition of the structure of common public telecommunications services to be provided in MERCOSUR;
• Establishment of interconnection criteria of the public networks of the member states; and
• The regulatory harmonization of converged services.

SGT1 is responsible for issuing regulatory recommendations to the Common Market Council on matters regarding postal services, radiocommunications, broadcasting, and public telecommunications services. SGT1 is comprised of four commissions, each one responsible for one of these four sectors of communications. These commissions hold joint meetings to discuss overlapping matters, propose ways of harmonizing legislation where their industries converge and remove legislation that hinders the integration of member states. SGT1 issues recommendations that must be ratified by the Common Market Council, and once ratified, member states must adopt the necessary measures to incorporate them into their national legislation.17 SGT1 has also issued general guidelines followed by the regulatory agencies of the member states with the objective of harmonizing administrative procedures and establishing common approaches on international forums.

iii. Regional Harmonization Efforts

Since its inception in 1995, SGT1 has issued several recommendations that have been incorporated into the national legislation of the member states. These include:

• The provision of basic public telephone services in the bordering areas of MERCOSUR;
• The adoption of common bands for paging and trunking services;
• Manuals and procedures for frequency coordination for radiocommunications and broadcasting services;18
• Adoption of a Unified Code of Emergency Services within MERCOSUR;19
• Regulatory framework for FM radio broadcasting;
• Harmonization of new technologies;20 and
• General rules for international roaming within MERCOSUR.

Other private efforts include the signing of a multilateral agreement, SINTONIA, among Brazil’s EMBRATEL, Uruguay’s ANATEL, Argentina’s TELINTAR and Chile’s CTC-Mundo, aimed at serving multinational business customers that operate in the MERCOSUR region in order to ensure integrated, homogenous services throughout the region. This agreement has been further expanded to include Bolivia-based Entel, Paraguay-based Antelco, and Telefónica del Perú in Peru.

OECS

i. Regional Framework

In 1981, Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines formed the treaty-based Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS).21 The OECS seeks to promote economic integration and cooperation among its member states, maximizing the benefits of their geographical position to facilitate their collective integration with the global economy. The OECS recognizes telecommunications as an essential tool for economic diversification and five countries (the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines) developed a Telecommunications Reform Project in an effort to seek ways of introducing competition in the sector.22 A review of the sector concluded that the high costs of access to telecommunications services and the lack of physical infrastructure and trained personnel in the sector were factors affecting the development of the telecommunications industry. The OECS governments also recognized the inadequacy of their telecommunications regulatory framework and the need to create regulatory frameworks favourable for development and investment in accordance with the WTO BTA. As a result, the five participating countries agreed to adopt a harmonized regulatory framework and a competitive regulatory authority.

ii. Regional Regulator – ECTEL

On May 4, 2000, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (the Contracting States) signed a treaty establishing the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority (ECTEL) a regional advisory body to promote market liberalization and competition in their telecommunications industry.23 ECTEL’s main objectives include promoting market liberalization and competition in the telecommunications sector of the Contracting States and establishing a harmonized regional regulatory regime. ECTEL is headed by a Council of Ministers, including the minister responsible for telecommunications in each of the Contracting States.

ECTEL’s functions include:24

• Coordinating with and advising the Contracting States on telecommunications matters to meet the objectives of the ECTEL Treaty;
• Issuing recommendations to the Contracting States on a harmonized regional radio spectrum plan;
• Preparing and recommending the adoption by the Contracting States of harmonized regulation including application forms and other forms in respect of licences, frequency authorizations and tender documents; and
• Designing and conducting open tender procedures for individual licences as requested by Contracting States.

iii. Harmonization Efforts

At the recommendation of ECTEL, each Contracting State adopted harmonized telecommunications legislation and regulations liberalizing the industry and introducing competition.25 Each Contracting State also established establishment of National Telecommunications Regulatory Commissions (NTRCs), with the responsibility of formulating national telecommunications policy, and ensuring efficient, economic and harmonized development telecommunications and broadcasting services in each Contracting State. To date, each Contracting State has adopted harmonized telecommunications regulations dealing with equipment and public networks, interconnection, private network licensing, licensing and authorizations, spectrum management, numbering, tariffs, confidentiality in network and services, and fees.

The new regulatory frameworks required all telecommunications licences to be issued on a non-exclusive basis, resulting in the termination of the monopoly service provider’s (Cable & Wireless) exclusive rights in the Contracting States. As a result, in 2001, the Contracting States entered into an agreement with Cable & Wireless establishing the terms for a joint collaboration and a gradual transition to full competition.26

Africa

i. Regional Framework – ECOWAS

The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is among the various regional economic communities in Africa that have been proactive in creating initiatives to foster cooperation and integration of their telecommunications and information technology activities. As opposed to other African regional initiatives, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) the ECOWAS Treaty foresees the harmonization of legislation, including in the telecommunications field, similar to the EU model.

ECOWAS, founded in 1975, is a regional organization of West African States (Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo). Its main objective is to form a unified economic zone in West Africa through economic integration and shared development in various industries, including telecommunications.27 In the area of telecommunications, the ECOWAS treaty seeks to establish “common transport and communications policies, laws and regulations.”28 The treaty further requires member states to:

• Develop, modernize, coordinate and standardize their national telecommunications networks in order to provide reliable interconnection among member states;
• Complete, with dispatch, the section of the pan-African telecommunications network situated in West Africa;
• Coordinate their efforts with regard to the operation and maintenance of the West African portion of the pan-African telecommunications network and in the mobilization of national and international financial resources;” and encourages member states to seek private sector participation so as to achieve these objectives.29

In addition, the Council of Ministers30 of ECOWAS has determined that the following items are priorities for the region:31

• Harmonization of regulatory frameworks and institutions.
• The evolution of a regional regulatory framework - the ECOWAS ICT Task Force has been established to harmonize ICT policies of member countries.
• Fostering competition.
• Building a robust Regional Backbone Infrastructure capable of supporting seamless cross-border connectivity.
• Reducing costs associated with rights of way through the installation of optical fibre cable on power lines to carry electricity supply between countries that have electricity.
• Granting operating licences on a priority basis to private investors that are interested in entering the markets in the region.

ii. Regional Regulatory/Supervisory Body

In 2002, ECOWAS was responsible for the creation of the West African Telecommunications Regulatory Association (WATRA), the main objective of which is to coordinate dialogue regarding telecommunications and regulation in the West African region. WATRA is an association of regulators and the respective government ministries of West African Territories responsible for telecommunications matters.32

WATRA is intended as a vehicle to foster continued development of information communications technology (ICT) within the subregion, and decisions and directives issued by the Conference of Regulators are binding on all national regulators. In this respect, WATRA encourages the establishment of consistent standards throughout the region to facilitate the deployment of interoperable ICT systems and services. The members expect WATRA to “become a leading forum for regulators in the region to exchange ideas and formulate plans regarding regulatory and technical issues that will accelerate development of infrastructure across the region.”33

Given the limited resources available for the development of regulatory frameworks that promote ICT sector development, WATRA may provide countries with a source of information (e.g., best practices and regulatory modeling) and support in the development of appropriate regulatory structures.

In September 2005, WATRA took on the leading role in approving the ECOWAS telecommunications guidelines on key regulatory issues at an Ordinary General Meeting in Accra.34 These guidelines will be the basis for ECOWAS Telecommunications Directives that are expected to be adopted by ECOWAS Ministers in early 2006. These efforts are a first in Africa and will set an example for other subregions in Africa and around the world.

iii. Harmonization

ECOWAS has undertaken a Telecommunications Regulation Harmonization Project35 aimed at designing a strategy for the harmonization of telecommunications policies in ECOWAS. To date, each ECOWAS country, with the exception of one, has commenced liberalization of the telecommunications sector and has separated postal and telecommunications operation from regulation. In addition, 11 ECOWAS countries36 have established telecommunications regulatory authorities.37

As ECOWAS progresses in its harmonization efforts, some of the challenges it may face include harmonization of existing national ICT policies (e.g., regional spectrum and licensing); evolving common principles for interconnection and universal access; safeguarding the interests of citizens (e.g., control of content); and using ICTs to reduce distance barriers among communities.38 See Box 3-3 for a description of other African regional harmonization initiatives.

Asia

ASEAN

Over the past decade, creating an effective framework to promote growth in the telecommunications industry has been a top priority for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), an intergovernmental organization comprised of the Governments of Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. ASEAN has several committees, meetings, and working groups41 focused on promoting liberalization and harmonization of the ICT industry42 and it has developed several ambitious proposals (e.g., the development of a seamless telecommunications network and a uniform regulatory framework among ASEAN countries). However, these proposals have yet to yield concrete results, largely due to the lack of binding authority of ASEAN’s decisions on its member countries.43

ASEAN countries also have signed several framework agreements and declarations vowing to open their markets to competition and work together towards the enhancement of their ICT sectors.44 As of September 2003, ASEAN continued to develop the e-commerce legal infrastructure to promote trust and consumer confidence. At the time, four member states (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam) indicated their readiness to implement the first phase of the ASEAN Telecommunications Regulators Council Mutual Recognition Arrangements (ATRC MRA) in 2003. Bilateral MRAs were carried out between Brunei and Singapore and between Indonesia and Singapore.45

In 2004, the ATRC agreed to develop non-binding regulatory models on best practices in “(i) competition and management and interconnection; (ii) convergence and new services; and (iii) cooperation on capacity-building.” The purpose of these models is to serve as guidelines for ASEAN regulators to develop new legislation and regulatory practices to establish their respective systems and processes. Such regulatory frameworks have not yet been developed.

A 2004 study conducted on the “Liberalization and Harmonization of the ASEAN Telecommunications” indicates that all ASEAN member countries are in different stages of market liberalization (i.e., either fully liberalized, substantially liberalized, in transition or in the first stages of policy change).46 The study found that a framework for reform was needed, consisting of three stages: (i) establishing the foundations for a regulatory regime; (ii) fostering network development through the introduction of competition; and (iii) full liberalization.

A second study focused on the objectives identified by the ASEAN Telecommunications Regulatory Council (i.e., interconnection and competition management; convergence and licensing of new service; and confronting the digital divide). The study recognized that work still needs to be done in these areas and that the first priority is the establishment of a “robust regulatory framework,” that will ensure effective regulation and an “independent regulator capable of dealing with sector-specific issues of market dominance.”47

ENDNOTES

1 Green Paper on the Convergence of the Telecommunications, Media and Information Technology Sectors, and its Implications for Regulation, COM (97) 623 (3 December 1997).

2 Towards a New Framework for Electronic Communications Infrastructure and Associated Services – The 1999 Communications Review, COM (1999) 539 (10 November 1999).

3 Framework Directive (Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, [hereinafter the Framework Directive]. Sector specific-regulation has been reduced from more than twenty directives to five. Available at: http://www.euroblind.org/fichiersGB/com200221.htm., supplemented by other directives: See also (i) Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (Authorization Directive) (ii), Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (Access Directive) (iii), Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 (Universal Service Directive) (iv), Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (Data Privacy Directive). [hereinafter the NRF], available at http://www.euroblind.org/fichiersGB/com200221.htm].

4 Recommendation on relevant product and service markets within the electronic communications sector susceptible to ex ante regulation in accordance with Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common regulatory framework for electronic communication networks and services (2003/311/EC), dated 11 February 2003 (Commission Recommendation on Relevant Markets); and, Commission Guidelines on market analysis and the assessment of significant market power under Community regulatory framework for electronic communications network and services (2002/C 165/03), dated 11 July 2002 (Commission Guidelines on Market Analysis).

5 Viviane Reding, Member of the EC responsible for Information Society and Media. “The Review of the Regulatory Framework for e-Communications,” SPEECH/05/515, 1st Meeting of the Centre for European Policy Studies Taskforce on Electronic Communications, Brussels, 15 September 2005, at 1.

6 Framework Directive, note 3, at 3.

7 The content of television programs is covered by Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in member states concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities 1989 OJ L 298. Directive as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of 30 July 1997, OJ L 202.

8 ERG was created by the Commission Decision establishing the European Regulators Group for Electronic Communications Networks and Services, (2002/627/EC) dated on 29 July 2002 as amended by the Commission Decision amending Decision 2002/627/EC establishing the European Regulators Group for Electronic Communications Networks and Services (2004/641/EC) dated on September 14, 2004.

9 Commission Decision: 2002/627/EC of 29 July 2002, as amended by Commission Decision 2004/3445/EC of 14 September 2004. The other committees include: (i) Communications Committee; (ii) Radio Spectrum Committee; and (iii) Radio Spectrum Policy Group.

10 ERG Common Position on the approach to appropriate remedies in the New Regulatory Framework ERG(03)30rev1, 1 April 2004, available at http://www.erg.eu.int/doc/whatsnew/erg_0330rev1_remedies_common_position.pdf.

11 Commission of the European Communities, Communication From the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – ‘i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM(2005), 1 June 2005, at 3.

12 Id.

13 See Enlargement of the European Union, Guide to the Negotiations, Chapter by Chapter, at 63.

14 Treaty Establishing a Common Market between the Argentine Republic, the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Paraguay and the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, 1991. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/mrcsr/mrcsrtoc.asp. [hereinafter the MERCOSUR Treaty].

15 MERCOSUR’s institutional structure is comprised of various commissions, boards and secretariats. The Common Market Council is the principal body within MERCOSUR and it is integrated by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Ministers of Economy of the member countries. It is responsible for enforcing the MERCOSUR Treaty and issuing decisions that are binding on the member states. A second body within MERCOSUR, the Common Market Group, operates as the executive branch of MERCOSUR and oversees compliance with the Treaty and its protocols. In order to fulfil its duties, the Common Market Board may create Working Subgroups that specialize in the different subject matters under the treaty (See Article 9 of the Treaty).

16 Pautas Negociadoras del SGT No. 1 “Comunicaciones,” MERCOSUR/GMC/Res. No. 61/01; available at http://www.cnc.gov.ar/internacionales/mercosur/Pautas.asp.

17 Art. 40 of the Protocol of Ouro Preto, December 17, 1994. This is an additional Protocol to the Treaty of Asunción on the Institutional Structure of MERCOSUR. This protocol recognizes MERCOSUR as an international juridical person with responsibility to negotiate agreements with third party countries or other regional blocks. Article 40 of the Protocol establishes a procedure for each the adoption by member states of norms issued by MERCOSUR, available at http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/mrcsr/ourop/ourop_e.asp.

18 Resolution issued by the Common Market Group of MERCOSUR, Res. GMC 17/94.

19 Resolution issued by the Common Market Group of MERCOSUR, Res. GMC 18/02.

20 Resolution issued by the Common Market Group of MERCOSUR, Res. GMC 24/94.

21 Treaty Establishing the Organisation of Eastern Carribbean States (the Treaty of Basseterre), June 18th 1981. Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands are associate members of the OECS.

22 See http://www.oecs.org/proj_telecoms.htm.

23 Treaty Establishing the Eastern Caribbean Telecommunications Authority, May 4, 2000, available at http://www.ntrc.vc/regulations/ECTEL_Treaty.pdf.

24 See http://www.ectel.info/ectelnew/aboutdoc/function%20and%20powers.pdf.

25 The telecommunications laws and regulations of each Contracting State may be found at http://www.ectel.info/ectelnew/ntrcs.html.

26 Available at http://www.ectel.int/about/Agreement.pdf.

27 http://www.ecowas.info/ecoint.htm (See Introduction section).

28 Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States, May 28, 1975, as amended, at Article 32.1(a) [hereinafter ECOWAS Treaty].

29 Article 33.2 of the ECOWAS Treaty.

30 The supreme institution within ECOWAS is the Authority of Heads of State and Government of Member States (the “Authority), composed of Heads of State and/or Government of Member States. It is responsible for the general direction and control of the community and adopts measures aimed at the progressive development of the community. The Council of Ministers, comprised of the minister in charge of ECOWAS Affairs and any other minister of each member state, is responsible for the ongoing functions of the community. The Council of Ministers issues recommendations to the Authority on actions aimed at achieving the community’s objectives, issues directives on matters concerning coordination and harmonization of economic integration policies, and performs any other tasks authorized by the Authority. See http://www.ecowas.int/.

31 Sofie Maddens, Support to the Establishment of an Integrated ICT Market in West Africa, ITU-EU West Africa Common Market Project, Report 2: Licensing Report, August-October 2004.

32 www.watra.org.

33 Sofie Maddens, Support to the Establishment of an Integrated ICT Market in West Africa, ITU-EU West Africa Common Market Project, Report 2: Licensing Report, August-October 2004.

34 For full text see http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2005/12.html.

35 This project is a joint European Union-ITU project aimed at assisting ECOWAS countries in harmonizing legislation in the sector, and consists of assistance in harmonization of legislation and policy and of capacity building assistance to ECOWAS countries. See http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/treg/projects/itu-ec/Ghana/modules/Compil-Guidelines_final.pdf for the full text of the guidelines.

36 Although Benin has established an interim Directorate within the Ministry Direction de la Politique des Postes et Télécommunications, it cannot be considered an independent and autonomous regulator.

37 Sofie Maddens, Support to the Establishment of an Integrated ICT Market in West Africa, ITU-EU West Africa Common Market Project, Report 2: Licensing Report, August-October 2004.

38 Id.

39 http://www.crasa.org/.

40 Hodge, James, University of Cape Town, WTO Telecommunications Negotiations: How Should SADC Countries Respond, SATRN, January 2003.

41 ASEAN Telecommunication Ministers Meeting (TELMIN), ASEAN Telecommunication Regulators’ Council (ARTC), ASEAN Telecommunication Senior Officials Meeting (TELSOM), Working group on ASEAN Information Infrastructure, Working group on Capacity Building Programmes, Working group on Universal Access and Digital Divide, Working group on Intra ASEAN Trade and Investment, Working group on Internet.

42 See Lay Hong Tan, Will ASEAN Economic Integration Progress Beyond a Free Trade Area?, 53 ICLQ 935, 949, stating that: “Despite three decades of close cooperation, ASEAN still lacks a supranational decision-making or law-making organ for legislating community law, or for the enforcement of any ASEAN protocol or resolution of disputes. ASEAN leaders have repeatedly rejected the idea of supra-nationality. It may be argued that this is the Achilles' heels of ASEAN integration.”

43 See A Commentary on Regional Institutions in the Pacific Rim: Do Apec and ASEAN Still Matter? 13 Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L. 337, *372 -373.

44 See the 1995 Framework Agreement on Services of the ASEAN, recommending that members liberalize trade in services by eliminating discriminatory measures and limitations on market access among the member states. The Framework Agreement also provided that member should negotiate measures affecting trade in specific service sectors with the objective of achieving commitments beyond their respective GATS commitments. In November 2000, the ASEAN member states signed an e-ASEAN Framework Agreement to “(1) promote cooperation to develop, strengthen and enhance the competitiveness of the ICT sector; (2) reduce the digital divide within individual ASEAN member states and amongst ASEAN member states; (3) promote cooperation between the public and private sectors in realizing e-ASEAN; and (4) liberalize trade in ICT products, ICT services and investments to support the e-ASEAN initiative.” In the Framework, they agreed to adopt electronic commerce and legislative frameworks that facilitate the development of an e-ASEAN. Other efforts include the 2002 Manila Declaration for the development of the ICT industry and deployment of new technologies.

45 See http://www.aseansec.org/6269.htm (referring to the results of The 3rd Meeting of the ASEAN Telecommunications and IT Ministers (TELMIN), held in September 2003).

46 The Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government (ANU), Society for the Advancement of Technology Management at the University of the Philippines, and the Thailand Development Research Institute, Liberalization and Harmonization of ASEAN Telecommunications, RESPF Project No. 02/009, July 2004.

47 Shogren, Rod (Access Economics), et al., Regulatory Models for ASEAN Telecommunications, Executive Summary, Final Report, REPSF Project No. 04/006.