This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS BRASILIA 001813 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EB/CIP/AJILLSON 
USDOC FOR 4332/ITA/MAC/WH/OLAC/JANDERSEN/ADRISCOLL/MWAR D 
USDOC FOR 3134/ITA/USCS/OIO/WH/RD/DDEVITO/DANDERSON/EOL SON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECPS AORC ECON ITU
SUBJECT: BRAZIL - SECOND DEMARCHE ON ITU/WTSA VETO ISSUE 
 
REF: (A) SECSTATE 124476, (B) BRASILIA 072 
 
¶1. (U) In a July 7 meeting, EconOff made Ref A points to 
Luis Fernando Serra, Joao Carlos Albernaz, Bruno Carvalho 
Ramos, and Luiz Fernando Ferreira Silva of ANATEL (Brazil's 
Telecommunications Regulatory Agency and the entity here 
responsible for ITU issues).  The GOB continues to be 
aligned with the USG on the veto issue as a matter of 
principle (see Ref B on previous demarche).  ANATEL was not 
happy with the change in the veto procedures, Bruno 
reiterated, but recognizes that the decision was made in the 
Assembly and considers the outcome better than other 
proposals for even more than two countries in order to veto 
a decision.  ANATEL, however, does not think that raising 
the issue with either the Telecommunication Standardization 
Advisory Group (TSAG) or the ITU Council is the best forum. 
The ANATEL representatives argued that the ITU should see 
what impact, if any, the change may have on ITU operations, 
and then, if justified, concerned countries could consider 
proposing a return to the previous single country veto 
during the next Assembly. 
 
¶2. (U) Serra said that ANATEL did not agree with the four 
USG-proposed Council actions in Ref A, but might reluctantly 
agree to have the issue forwarded to a Plenipotentiary 
Conference for discussion.  The ANATEL officials, however, 
see many risks in this strategy.  They noted that the vote 
during the previous Assembly was specific to the Alternative 
Approval Process (AAP), but that the change could be applied 
more broadly during a Plenipotentiary.  In addition, they 
noted that there is pressure, from the European Union in 
particular, to expand voting rights to the private sector, 
which the GOB opposes for two reasons: first, because the 
GOB sees the ITU as a governmental forum, and second, 
because it would dramatically increase the voting power of 
the "first world" where the telecommunications industry is 
more highly concentrated.  If the USG pushes on the single 
country veto issue during a Plenipotentiary, however, the 
ANATEL officials feared that the necessary political trade- 
off to achieve that end would be the expansion of voting 
rights.  The ANATEL officials also expressed concern that 
presenting the issue in a Plenipotentiary may backfire 
because the Plenipotentiary reaches decisions by voting (not 
consensus) and a significant number of countries supported 
the change in veto procedures during the Assembly. 
 
¶3. (U) While acknowledging reftel points, Serra and Albernaz 
requested that the U.S. delegation explain precisely why the 
USG believes the Council is the appropriate forum to reverse 
the change in AAP veto procedures.  The GOB delegation also 
wishes to discuss the risks involved in a Plenipotentiary 
Conference and suggested that Executive Committee of the 
Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL) meeting 
during the week may be a good opportunity for that 
discussion. 
 
¶4. (U) The ANATEL delegation to the ITU Council meeting the 
week of July 11 will consist of ANATEL Director Jose Leite 
Pereira Filho, International Affairs Coordinator Luis 
Fernando Serra, and Technical Advisory Division Chief Joao 
Carlos Albernaz.  Ramos is the Mobile Communications 
Standards Manager and ANATEL's lead on normalization issues 
at ITU.  Luiz Fernando Ferreira Silva is ANATEL's General 
Manager of Planning and Regulation, and participated in the 
TSAG meetings in March. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
CHICOLA