Deep briefing · Status as of July 2026 · WRC-27 study cycle

WRC-27 from first principles: every agenda item, every fight, and how each is likely to end

The 2027 World Radiocommunication Conference will rewrite parts of the Radio Regulations treaty. This page explains each agenda item from the underlying physics and regulatory logic upward — what is really being fought over, who is pushing and who is blocking, and an analytical call on the probable outcome.

Conference
18 Oct – 12 Nov 2027 · Shanghai
RA-27
11 – 15 Oct 2027
Agenda
Res 813 (WRC-23) · 19 items + standing
WRC-31 preliminary
Res 814 (WRC-23) · 14 items
CPM27-2
5–15 Apr 2027 · Geneva
Host context
First WRC in Asia-Pacific; China chairs the ground

01First principles — why WRCs exist and how outcomes are actually decided

The physics that creates the politics

Radio spectrum is a shared physical medium: a transmitter in one service raises the noise floor for every receiver in range, and radio waves ignore borders. Two properties drive everything at a WRC. First, propagation is frequency-dependent — low bands travel far and penetrate buildings (scarce, precious for coverage), high bands carry bandwidth but die quickly (plentiful, needed for capacity). Every service wants the same "mid-band" compromise region, which is why 4–15 GHz is the crowded battlefield of this cycle. Second, receiver sensitivity is asymmetric: a passive radiometer or radio telescope measuring thermal noise at −180 dBW-class levels can be blinded by an emission that a communications receiver would never notice. Protecting the most sensitive user in a band sets the constraint for everyone else — the root of nearly every science-service dispute below.

The Radio Regulations manage this through a Table of Frequency Allocations (Article 5): each band is allocated to services (fixed, mobile, FSS, MSS, EESS, RAS…) with primary/secondary status, refined by footnotes, power limits (Article 21), coordination procedures (Articles 9/11) and Plans (Appendices 30/30A/30B). An "IMT identification" is not an allocation — it is a flag inside an existing mobile allocation that drives global equipment ecosystems. That distinction matters constantly at WRC-27.

How decisions really get made

A WRC decides by consensus wherever possible — votes are rare and considered a failure of process. This gives blocking power to determined minorities and makes "No Change" (NOC) the default winner when studies diverge. The practical toolkit for breaking deadlock is well-worn: country footnotes (a group of countries opts in, others stay out), regional splits (Region 1/2/3 treated differently), conditions (pfd masks, coordination triggers, "shall not claim protection" clauses), and deferral (push the hard part to WRC-31 via agenda item 10).

Positions aggregate upward: national process → regional group (CEPT, APT, CITEL, ASMG, ATU, RCC) → multi-region coalitions at the conference. A proposal backed by two or more regional groups usually prevails; a proposal opposed by one cohesive group usually ends in a footnote-and-conditions compromise. The CPM Report (approved at CPM27-2) constrains the negotiation space: conferences pick among the CPM "methods", so the fight over which methods get into the report during 2026 is a fight over the conference itself.

Two structural facts colour this cycle: an estimated 80%+ of the agenda touches NGSO systems directly or indirectly, and the conference is hosted by China — historically the host administration gains agenda-management and coalition-building leverage ("home field advantage"), a stated concern of US industry.

02Outlook at a glance

Analytical assessment, not an official forecast: contentiousness today, and the most probable conference outcome based on study status, camp alignment and WRC precedent. Full reasoning in each item card below.

Low heat broad support, engineering-driven Contested real opposition, compromise machinery needed Battleground bloc-level conflict, NOC or fragmentation plausible
AITopicHeatMost probable outcome
1.1Q/V-band aero/maritime ESIMsLowNew enabling Resolution, Res 123-pattern conditions
1.2Smaller FSS antennas 13.75–14 GHzContestedRelaxation with e.i.r.p.-based conditions replacing size floor
1.3NGSO gateways 51.4–52.4 GHzLowExtension to NGSO with Res 750-type passive protection + GSO safeguards
1.4Region 3 FSS/BSS 17.3–17.7/17.8 GHzContestedFSS (s-E) allocation likely; BSS component less certain
1.5Unauthorized NGSO terminalsBattlegroundSoft outcome: reaffirmed sovereignty language, no hard coverage mandate
1.6Equitable access, Q/V FSSBattlegroundDeclaratory resolution; core coordination procedures untouched
1.7IMT: 4.4/7–8/15 GHzBattlegroundFragmented: partial-band, regional/footnote identifications; no clean global full-band win
1.8Sub-THz radiolocationLowAllocations/identifications with passive-band carve-outs
1.9App 26 HF modernizationLowAppendix revised; narrowband grandfathered
1.10E-band Art 21 limitsContestedLimits adopted; the fight is over the numbers
1.11MSS space-to-space linksContestedEnabling provisions with strict same-direction/GNSS-adjacency conditions
1.12LDR-MSS (satellite IoT)ContestedBand-by-band split; 1 880–1 920 MHz likely fails, others partial
1.13Direct-to-device (DC-MSS-IMT)BattlegroundFramework with heavy conditions in subset of bands; residual work to WRC-31 plausible
1.14New MSS ~2 GHzBattlegroundHighest NOC risk of the MSS block — a No-Change method is already in the draft CPM text
1.15Lunar communicationsLowSRS framework adopted; SZM protections preserved
1.16RAS / Radio Quiet Zones vs NGSOContestedRQZ recognition in soft form; binding aggregate limits unlikely
1.17Space weather sensorsLowAllocations adopted on no-protection/no-constraint basis
1.18Passive protection >76 GHzContestedPair-by-pair: some Res 750-style entries, some NOC
1.19EESS passive 4.2/8.4 GHzLowAdopted — conditions make it nearly costless to incumbents
7Satellite regulatory procedures (Res 86)BattlegroundUnprecedented topic deadlock; compressed 5–6 topic package, contested topics squeezed out by the calendar

03Timeline to Shanghai

04Agenda items 1.1 – 1.19 in depth

Each card: the first-principles background, the item itself, the controversy, the camps, working-party status, a dated latest-developments dossier, and a reasoned outcome call. Camp attributions reflect published positions and observable behaviour as of mid-2026; alignments shift, and "likely outcome" is this document's analysis — not any group's official view.

1.1 Aeronautical & maritime ESIMs in Q/V-band uplinks WP 4ARes 176 (Rev.WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

The RR were written for earth stations at fixed, coordinated locations; an FSS terminal on a moving aircraft or ship breaks that assumption, because interference geometry toward terrestrial services changes continuously. The ESIM concept solves this with a substitute discipline: pfd masks toward territory, a Network Control and Monitoring Centre (NCMC) that can shut terminals down, and a clearly identified responsible administration. WRC-15/19/23 built this out through Ka-band and Q/V downlinks; AI 1.1 completes the Q/V uplink half — 47.2–50.2 GHz and 50.4–51.4 GHz (Earth-to-space) toward GSO and NGSO FSS. The physical complication: EESS (passive) sits in the 50.2–50.4 GHz gap between the two uplink segments, measuring atmospheric oxygen absorption for weather models — a sensor class that cannot filter out-of-band energy after the fact.

The controversy

Modest. Nobody disputes the demand (aero/maritime broadband on VHTS and NGSO systems). The friction points are (a) how strictly ESIM unwanted emissions must be limited to protect the 50.2–50.4 GHz passive band (Res 750 conditions), (b) protection of terrestrial FS/MS in countries with dense fixed-link use of these bands, and (c) whether the regulatory model simply copies Res 123 (WRC-23) or is re-litigated.

Working-party status

WP 4A is progressing spectrum needs, ESIM characteristics and sharing studies. Regulatory drafting is converging on precedent: notifying-administration identification and interference-management procedures modelled on Res 123, with NCMC documentation likely as an ITU-R Recommendation rather than treaty text.

Camps

Pushing
Satellite operators with Q/V ambitions (Viasat/Inmarsat, SES, Starlink/Kuiper-class NGSOs), aero/maritime service providers; CEPT constructive; CITEL administrations (US, Brazil, Mexico) supportive.
Cautious / conditions
Meteorological community (WMO, EUMETSAT-aligned administrations) on passive-band protection; administrations with terrestrial deployments in-band insisting on unchanged FS/MS protection.

Latest developments

  • Study framework: the SWG on AI 1.1 in WP 4A (chaired by Soraya Contreras) is progressing ESIM characteristics, spectrum needs and sharing studies; the drafting logic follows Res 176 (Rev.WRC-23) with pfd masks toward territories, minimum elevation angles and NCMC obligations. Protection references in play: Res 750 (Rev.WRC-23) for EESS (passive) in 50.2–50.4 GHz, Rec ITU-R F.758-series criteria for FS, and the Res 169/123 precedent architecture for responsibility provisions.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25, Geneva): dedicated briefing on AI 1.1 delivered by the SWG chair — the item is tracking as one of the least divergent across regional groups.
  • 2026: CEPT brief (PTD area) stable on the Res 123-pattern approach; NCMC documentation heading for an ITU-R Recommendation rather than treaty text. Draft CPM text due 23 Oct 2026; on schedule.
Likely: yes, with conditions

Every prior ESIM item has ended in an enabling Resolution once the pfd/NCMC machinery was agreed, and this one rides directly on the WRC-23 template. Expect adoption with Res 750-referenced unwanted-emission limits and Res 123-pattern responsibility provisions. The residual risk is timing (study completion), not direction.

1.2 Smaller FSS uplink antennas in 13.75–14 GHz WP 4ARes 129 (WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

13.75–14 GHz was added to the Ku uplink at WARC-92 over the objections of radar users — it hosts the radiolocation service (including high-power naval radars operating in international waters, which cannot be geographically coordinated against) and space research (including data-relay uplinks). The compromise was crude but effective: Nos. 5.502/5.503 impose a minimum GSO earth station antenna diameter (4.5 m) plus e.i.r.p. constraints. A big dish means a narrow beam and high gain — you get your link budget with less total radiated power and less energy toward the horizon where radars listen. Shrink the dish and the beam widens: the same link needs more power spread over more angles. The item asks whether modern conditions (better sidelobe performance, uplink power control, NGSO geometry) let smaller antennas in without recreating the 1992 problem — noting each terminal is weaker but there would be vastly more of them (aggregate effect).

The controversy

A classic single-issue sharing fight: FSS operators (GSO and NGSO) want consumer-class Ku terminals across the full 500 MHz; navies and space agencies behind the radiolocation/SRS allocations don't trust aggregate-interference maths built on operator-supplied deployment assumptions. Because naval radars move and operate in international waters, no geographic coordination scheme fully substitutes for hard limits — the disagreement is over what limit structure replaces the size floor.

Working-party status

Studies in WP 4A are relatively mature; industry reads results as showing sharing feasible under appropriate conditions (off-axis e.i.r.p. density rather than aperture size). Radar-operating administrations are pressing aggregate scenarios and want any relaxation validated against worst-case fleet geometries.

Camps

Pushing
GSO/NGSO Ku-band operators and their flag administrations; US satellite industry via the WAC; parts of CITEL.
Cautious / conditions
CEPT — explicit position that changes to 5.502/5.503 must be demonstrated (by studies CEPT accepts) to protect radiolocation, radionavigation and SRS; navies of major maritime powers; space agencies with 13.75–14 GHz SRS use (data relay).

Latest developments

  • Study framework: CPM27-1 provided for joint WP 4A/WP 5B sessions if needed on radiolocation protection — a structural acknowledgment that RLS protection is the deciding question. Studies test replacement of the 4.5 m floor (No. 5.502) with off-axis e.i.r.p.-density masks; SRS protection assessed against data-relay system characteristics; aggregate scenarios use assumed NGSO/GSO terminal deployment densities — the main point of methodological dispute.
  • 2025–2026: operator-side studies (SES and others) conclude sharing is feasible with appropriate e.i.r.p.-based conditions; radar-operating administrations continue to contest deployment assumptions. CEPT position holds: modification must be demonstrated to protect RLS, RNS and SRS before CEPT will support relaxation.
  • Open question for CPM text: whether methods present a single conditioned-relaxation option or bracket a size-floor-retention alternative — the answer will reveal how far convergence actually got.
Likely: conditional relaxation

The technical case for replacing an antenna-size floor with e.i.r.p.-density conditions is strong and hard to refute on physics; the precedent (WRC-03 already adjusted these provisions) shows the band's regime is revisable. Probable landing zone: reduced minimum size or a size-independent e.i.r.p./off-axis mask, with unchanged protection numbers for RLS/SRS written directly into the footnotes. Full NOC only if aggregate studies fail to converge.

1.3 NGSO FSS gateway uplinks in 51.4–52.4 GHz WP 4ARes 130 (WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

Constellation capacity is gated by feeder links: a few hundred gateway sites must carry the entire system's traffic to and from the internet, so gateways need wide, high bands and can tolerate rain fade through site diversity. WRC-19 opened 51.4–52.4 GHz (E-s) for GSO FSS gateways; this item extends the same band to NGSO gateways. Physics of the neighbourhood: the 50–58 GHz range contains the oxygen absorption complex used by every operational weather sounder — EESS (passive) above 52.6 GHz cannot tolerate out-of-band leakage, and RAS observes within 51.4–54.25 GHz. Gateways are the easiest earth stations to regulate (few, fixed, professionally engineered), which is why this item is tractable.

The controversy

Limited: unwanted-emission limits toward the passive bands (how much margin), RAS coordination around observatory sites, and a genuinely new wrinkle — protecting GSO space station receivers from NGSO gateway uplink beams that sweep near the GSO arc (whether to extend the Res 769/770 GSO-protection framework to this band).

Working-party status

WP 4A studies proceeding across all four axes (in-band sharing, passive protection under Res 750 logic, RAS, GSO protection). No structural opposition visible; CEPT brief maintained constructively, CITEL administrations (Brazil, Mexico, US) filed early supportive views.

Camps

Pushing
NGSO operators scaling into V-band (Starlink, Amazon Leo/Kuiper, Telesat), their administrations (US, Canada); broad regional acceptance.
Cautious / conditions
Meteorological/EESS community on 52.6+ GHz leakage; RAS community on 51.4–54.25 GHz; GSO operators wanting arc-avoidance/e.i.r.p. constraints codified.

Latest developments

  • Study framework: four study axes per Res 130 (WRC-23): (i) in-band sharing with FS/MS and suitability of revising the conditions on the existing FSS (E-s) allocation; (ii) EESS (passive) protection above 52.6 GHz under Res 750 logic; (iii) RAS protection in 51.4–54.25 GHz (RA.769 thresholds, coordination-zone methodology); (iv) protection of GSO networks from NGSO gateway uplinks — candidate extension of the Res 769/770 framework.
  • 2025–2026: WP 4A studies advancing without structural blockage; gateway-class earth stations keep the interference geometry tractable. CITEL early preliminary views (Brazil, Mexico, US) supportive; CEPT brief constructive with passive/GSO conditions.
  • Watch: whether the GSO-protection condition lands as hard e.i.r.p./arc-avoidance limits in the RR or as coordination-trigger language — the only genuinely open drafting question.
Likely: yes, with conditions

Gateway-only items with professional earth stations almost always succeed; the WRC-19 GSO precedent in the identical band removes most novelty. Expect the allocation use extended to NGSO with Res 750-type limits, RAS coordination provisions, and GSO-protection conditions (Res 769/770 extension or equivalent).

1.4 Region 3 FSS/BSS downlinks at 17.3–17.7/17.8 GHz WP 4ARes 131 (WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

17.3–17.7 GHz is a reverse-band problem. Globally it carries uplink feeder links (Earth-to-space) for the planned BSS under Appendix 30A — treaty-protected assignments many administrations regard as their guaranteed orbital patrimony. WRC-19 added a Region 2 BSS downlink, WRC-23 a Region 2 FSS downlink in the same band; Region 3 was left out. Downlinks and uplinks in the same band create two novel couplings: satellite downlink beams can interfere into the satellite receivers of the feeder-link uplinks, and feeder-link earth stations transmitting at high power sit near new receive earth stations on the ground. The item tests whether Region 3 can replicate the Region 2 outcome — including whether Region 2's NGSO epfd limits for the band should follow.

The controversy

Intra-regional rather than inter-regional: Region 3 administrations with valuable App 30A plan assignments (and those planning to use them) versus Region 3 administrations and operators wanting modern FSS/BSS downlink capacity. Whether the BSS component survives alongside FSS is the open question — WRC-23's Region 2 outcome was FSS-only in 17.3–17.7 GHz, and App 30A protection arguments bite harder against BSS. The epfd-extension question quietly imports the GSO/NGSO fight into the item.

Working-party status

WP 4A running the FSS↔App 30A sharing studies; CITEL opened a dedicated rapporteurship on 17.3–17.7 GHz (Region 2 operational experience feeding in); APT drafting-group work active — this will be an APT-decided item in substance.

Camps

Pushing
Region 3 satellite operators and administrations seeking downlink capacity (incl. those with Ka-band VHTS/NGSO plans); GSO operators with cross-regional fleets; US/CITEL sympathetic given their own precedent.
Cautious / conditions
App 30A assignment holders in Region 3 (several developing administrations treat plan assignments as sovereign assets); administrations wary of applying Region 2 NGSO epfd limits without fresh study.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 726, WRC-23): the item text couples three questions — new R3 FSS (s-E) in 17.3–17.7 GHz, new R3 BSS (s-E) in 17.3–17.8 GHz, and whether the Region 2 NGSO epfd limits in 17.3–17.7 GHz should be applied in Regions 1 and 3. Sharing analysis centres on protection of App 30A feeder-link uplinks (space-station receiver protection in reverse-band geometry) and BSS in 17.7–17.8 GHz adjacency.
  • 2025 (US National Academies report): flags the EESS (active) use at 17.2–17.3 GHz (snow-water-equivalent radar campaigns — SnowSAR, SNOWII, Ka/Ku snow radars) directly below the band; recommends out-of-band emission analysis using Rec ITU-R RS.1166-5 interference thresholds as the starting point — an adjacency few delegations had prioritized.
  • 2025–2026: CITEL rapporteurship on 17.3–17.7 GHz active (Region 2 operational experience feeding Region 3 methods); APT drafting-group work is the decisive venue — App 30A assignment holders inside Region 3 are the swing constituency.
Likely: FSS yes, BSS uncertain

The Region 2 precedent plus completed sharing methodology make an FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation with App 30A protection conditions the path of least resistance. The BSS piece and the epfd question are the probable casualties or late-night compromises — expect conditions-laden adoption of the FSS core, with BSS either dropped or admitted under stricter constraints.

1.5 Unauthorized NGSO earth station operations & service-area sovereignty WP 4ARes 14 (WRC-23)Battleground

Background — first principles

The ITU system rests on a division of labour: the RR coordinate between countries; within its territory, each administration has absolute authority over who may transmit (Article 18: no transmitting station may operate without a licence). A LEO constellation breaks the comfortable fiction that these layers never conflict — its satellites see every country on every orbit, and a user terminal smuggled into an unlicensed market works perfectly unless the operator chooses to disable it. Terminals transmitting without a licence are already illegal under national law and Article 18; the question WRC-23 punted here is whether the Radio Regulations should compel operators, at treaty level, to make service in unauthorized territories technically impossible — e.g., geofencing obligations, coverage restrictions, verified shut-off, or requiring the notifying administration to obtain agreements. That collides with an equally fundamental principle: no administration should get a veto over service delivered lawfully in a neighbouring country, and beams do not stop at borders.

The controversy

Openly political. Behind the regulatory language: Starlink-class systems being used in countries that have refused them licences — for reasons ranging from legitimate licensing process to information control. Demandeurs want binding, verifiable obligations in the RR; the operator-side bloc answers that Res 22/25 and Article 18 already create the obligations and the gap is national enforcement, and that "measures" would hand any government a kill-switch lever over global systems. Proposals to require explicit agreement per territory, or to limit the illuminated coverage area, are the specific red lines.

Working-party status

WP 4A studying candidate measures and — critically — their implementability: what can be verified by whom. Expect the CPM Report to carry sharply divergent methods, from NOC through soft transparency mechanisms to binding geofencing obligations.

Camps

Pushing binding measures
A coalition of administrations prioritizing licensing sovereignty and control — typically including Iran, Russia and like-minded states, plus a number of African and Arab (ASMG) administrations frustrated by grey-market terminal use; sympathetic hearing in parts of Region 1.
Resisting
CEPT (explicit: existing Art 18/Res 22/25 measures suffice; opposes coverage-area limits, per-territory agreement requirements, or NCMC mandates); US and other NGSO flag states; global NGSO operators; administrations that see enforcement as national business.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 14, WRC-23): WP 4A is structuring the work around candidate "measures" and a mandated implementability test — what can be verified, by whom, with what Bureau role. Categories on the table: NCMC-based geolocation/shut-off obligations, coverage/service-area declarations in filings (Appendix 4 implications), notification-stage undertakings, and transparency/point-of-contact mechanisms; against them, the position that Art 18 + Res 22/25 already suffice.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): dedicated panel confirmed the bloc split is unchanged — demandeurs want binding technical measures, CEPT/US-aligned administrations hold the NOC-plus-enforcement line.
  • 2026: expect the draft CPM text (due 23 Oct 2026) to carry the full spread of methods from NOC to binding obligations — the widest method divergence of the satellite items. Appendix 4 service-area data-element proposals are the piece with direct BR examination impact; watch them closely.
Likely: soft compromise

Consensus rules favour the blockers: binding coverage-restriction language would be vetoed by CEPT/US, while pure NOC is politically unsellable to the demandeurs — and the host administration has its own sovereignty sympathies, so the item will get floor time. The probable landing: a revised/new Resolution strengthening transparency and cooperation obligations (points of contact, response to complaints, affirmation of Art 18 authority, perhaps reporting mechanics), stopping short of technical mandates. Watch this item for late-conference package deals with AIs 1.6 and 7.

1.6 Equitable access to Q/V-band FSS (37.5–51.4 GHz) WP 4ARes 131 (WRC-23)Battleground

Background — first principles

Article 44 of the ITU Constitution promises all countries "equitable access" to spectrum and orbits — but the coordination machinery of Articles 9/11 is first-come-first-served: whoever files and coordinates first acquires priority protection. Historically the tension was managed for GSO through the Appendix 30B plan (a guaranteed orbital slot per country). Nothing equivalent exists for NGSO, and in 37.5–42.5 GHz (s-E) / 42.5–43.5, 47.2–50.2, 50.4–51.4 GHz (E-s), a handful of mega-constellation filings are absorbing the coordination environment years before most countries could field a system. AI 1.6 asks whether the RR should contain mechanisms guaranteeing later entrants — explicitly developing countries — practical access, without harming existing systems or terrestrial protections. The structural problem: any mechanism with teeth (set-asides, priority resets, capacity obligations) violates the "without adversely affecting" constraint; any mechanism without teeth changes nothing.

The controversy

A principles fight wearing a technical mask. Developing-country blocs read the item as the test of whether Article 44 means anything in the NGSO era; incumbent-operator states read most concrete proposals as retroactive expropriation of coordination priority and an attack on the filing system's predictability. The same fault line ran through WRC-23's Res 743 debates and the equitable-access aspects of AI 7.

Working-party status

WP 4A collecting proposals; the constraint set in Res 131 makes strong mechanisms hard to draft, and study output so far is more taxonomy than solution. Expect widely divergent CPM methods — from NOC to milestone/transparency obligations to aspirational resolutions.

Camps

Pushing
ATU (African group) and ASMG administrations as principal demandeurs; sympathetic developing administrations across APT and CITEL; conceptual support from states favouring multilateral constraints on mega-constellations.
Resisting
US and NGSO flag/operator states; CEPT protective of the coordination framework's integrity; GSO and NGSO incumbents alike (rare alignment) — neither wants priority mechanics reopened.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 131, WRC-23): studies must identify measures for equitable access without adversely affecting existing networks, coordination outcomes or terrestrial protections. Candidate mechanism families in WP 4A papers: enhanced transparency/reporting by the Bureau on Q/V-band filing occupancy, capacity-availability or cooperation obligations, procedural accommodations for new entrants (relaxed milestones, assistance provisions), and Art 44-restating resolution text.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): dedicated panel on AI 1.6 — developing-country interventions framed it as the Article 44 test case; incumbent-side interventions steered toward capacity-building and transparency rather than procedure change.
  • 2026: study output remains taxonomy-heavy; no mechanism with teeth has survived the "without adversely affecting" constraint. Watch the interaction with AI 9.3 (Res 80) and the Res 170/App 30B candidate topic under AI 7 — three venues, one debate.
Likely: declaratory outcome

Precedent is strong: equitable-access items reliably end in resolutions that acknowledge the concern, mandate reporting/studies, and leave Articles 9/11 untouched. Expect a new or revised Resolution (possibly with Bureau reporting obligations and capacity-building language), no change to coordination procedure, and the substance rolled forward — likely resurfacing at WRC-31.

1.7 IMT identifications: 4.4–4.8 GHz, 7.125–8.4 GHz, 14.8–15.35 GHz WP 5DRes 256 (WRC-23)Battleground

Background — first principles

Mobile networks need "upper mid-band" for 6G: below ~2 GHz gives coverage but no bandwidth; millimetre-wave gives bandwidth but no coverage; the 4–15 GHz window is the only place wide contiguous channels and workable cell sizes coexist. But that same window is where the propagation physics also favoured the incumbents who arrived decades earlier: 7 125–8 400 MHz hosts government/military FSS downlinks (~7.25–7.75 GHz — the NATO and allied X-band satcom home), MetSat downlinks (7 450–7 550, 7 750–7 900 MHz), EESS payload downlinks (8 025–8 400 MHz), SRS, SOS and dense fixed links. 4 400–4 800 MHz is a core military aeronautical/mobile band across NATO Europe and elsewhere (and sits directly above the 4.2–4.4 GHz radio-altimeter band). An IMT identification would not evict anyone as a matter of law — but as a matter of economics it aims a multi-trillion-dollar equipment ecosystem at the band, and incumbents know how that story ends. The geopolitical layer is explicit: these study bands were forced onto the agenda late at WRC-23, widely read as a China/Russia-aligned move that pressures Western military spectrum while expanding the addressable market for Chinese vendors; the US then made 7.125–8.4 GHz a National Spectrum Strategy study band of its own.

The controversy

Three fights in one. (1) 7/8 GHz: whether any part can be identified without unacceptable risk to milsatcom, MetSat and EESS — and if parts, which parts (the sub-band structure is everything; positions differ on 7 125–7 250, 7 250–7 750, 7 750–8 025, 8 025–8 400 MHz as separate problems). (2) 4.4–4.8 GHz: China deploys adjacent bands for 5G and supports identification; NATO-aligned Europe treats it as untouchable military spectrum — at WRC-23 the equivalent debate ended with no consensus over radiolocation/military protection. (3) Modelling war: WP 5D studies show major divergences in assumptions (deployment density, clutter, AAS patterns, aggregation toward satellite receivers) producing mutually contradictory feasibility results — each camp arrives with studies proving its case.

Working-party status

WP 5D is drowning in contributions (dozens per meeting on this item alone, mostly 7/8 GHz). IMT characteristics were delivered 2024–25; sharing studies against MetSat/EESS/SRS/FSS are mid-stream with unreconciled methodology gaps; protection criteria for IMT itself and treatment of stations in international airspace/waters (unregisterable in the MIFR) remain contested. 14.8–15.35 GHz studies are the least mature of the three ranges.

Camps

Pushing identification
7/8 GHz: US (WAC/Feb-2026 position: full-band 7 125–8 400 identification for 6G harmonization, while retaining federal use above 7.4 GHz domestically), GSMA and the mobile vendor/operator ecosystem, China and aligned administrations, several developing administrations wanting harmonized 6G spectrum. 4.4–4.8 GHz: China and some APT members. 15 GHz: mobile industry, selectively.
Resisting / restricting
7/8 GHz: European defence establishments and much of CEPT (X-band milsatcom), meteorological community (WMO — MetSat downlinks are single-point-of-failure infrastructure), EESS/space agencies (8 025–8 400 MHz payload downlinks), Russia on incumbent-protection grounds; satellite industry broadly. 4.4–4.8 GHz: NATO members near-uniformly; Japan and others with aeronautical uses. Note the US position is internally split-by-design: pro-identification internationally, protective federally above 7.4 GHz.

Latest developments

  • Study framework: IMT characteristics for studies were fixed in 2024–25 (deadline Dec 2024); sharing studies run per band against MetSat (Rec ITU-R SA.1158/SA.1159-class protection), EESS downlinks at 8 025–8 400 MHz, SRS, FSS uplink aggregation toward GSO/NGSO receivers, fixed links (F.758 criteria) and radio altimeter adjacency below 4 400 MHz. The unresolved methodology gaps: IMT deployment density per km², clutter/propagation model choice (P.2108/P.452 application), AAS beamforming statistics, and aggregate apportionment toward space receivers.
  • Feb 2026 (US WAC, 4th meeting): adopted recommendations supporting IMT identification across the full 7 125–8 400 MHz internationally for 6G harmonization, paired with domestic retention of federal operations above 7.4 GHz — the clearest statement yet of the US two-level strategy.
  • 2026 (WP 5D): contribution volume remains the highest of any item; recent meetings continued to log major differences in assumptions and modelling producing inconsistent results — with the 23 Oct 2026 draft-CPM-text deadline forcing the group to either bracket alternatives or converge fast. 14.8–15.35 GHz studies remain the least mature; 4 400–4 800 MHz effectively frozen between the China-aligned and NATO-aligned camps.
  • Regional: ECC PT1 continues to develop the CEPT position (band segments, not full band); APT unable to converge — expect no ACP on the contested sub-bands; ASMG/ATU positions still forming and heavily courted.
Likely: fragmented outcome

No clean global full-band identification is plausible against cohesive NATO-Europe resistance on 4.4–4.8 GHz and the milsatcom/MetSat core of 7/8 GHz — but total NOC is equally implausible with the US, China and GSMA all wanting something. The WRC-23 upper-6-GHz precedent is the template: expect partial-band identifications with regional splits and country footnotes — most likely candidates being segments avoiding 7 250–7 750 MHz (e.g. around 7 125–7 250 and/or parts of 7 750–8 400 MHz with EESS conditions), 4 400–4 800 MHz limited to country footnotes (China-aligned group), and a modest 14.8–15.35 GHz outcome. Conditions will be heavy (protection of MetSat/EESS with hard limits, no-interference/no-protection language toward stations in international waters/airspace). This item will consume more conference floor time than any other and will be decided in the final week.

1.8 Radiolocation above 231.5 GHz — sub-THz imaging WP 5BRes 663 (Rev.WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

At sub-millimetre wavelengths, radar becomes imaging: resolution scales with frequency, so 231.5–275 GHz and 275–700 GHz enable body-scanner-class security screening and concealed-object detection with quasi-optical beams. The same physics makes the range scientifically irreplaceable — molecular rotation lines used by radio astronomy and atmospheric chemistry sit throughout it, which is why No. 5.565 identifies swathes of 275–1000 GHz for passive use and No. 5.564A already handles fixed/land-mobile there. Above 275 GHz there are no allocations at all, only identifications — so the item is partly about extending the allocation table's ceiling. Mitigating factor from propagation: atmospheric absorption at these frequencies is brutal, so interference ranges are short and geographic separation works.

The controversy

Mild and technical: whether active imaging emissions can be kept out of the 5.565 passive bands (frequency planning inside the range), and how to treat receive-only vs active imaging applications differently — a distinction CEPT has now formalized in its position. RAS sites doing THz work (high-altitude observatories) want explicit protection.

Working-party status

WP 5B progressing characteristics, protection criteria and sharing studies; CEPT PTA (Feb 2026) updated its position to distinguish active/passive RLS applications with multiple protection concepts — a sign of convergence toward differentiated regulatory treatment rather than a fight.

Camps

Pushing
Security-screening and sensing industry (Europe, US, Asia); administrations wanting harmonized bands for airport/venue scanners; automotive/industrial sensing interests above 275 GHz.
Cautious / conditions
Radio astronomy and passive-sensing communities (protect 5.565 bands absolutely); fixed/land-mobile proponents in 275–450 GHz wanting their 5.564A identifications respected.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 663 Rev): WP 5B collecting technical/operational characteristics and protection criteria for imaging radiolocation, with compatibility studies against the No. 5.565 passive identifications (EESS passive, SRS passive, RAS) and the No. 5.564A FS/LMS identifications in 275–450 GHz; propagation per P-series sub-THz models where they exist (a known gap — SG 3 input matters here).
  • Feb 2026 (CEPT PTA#4, Prague): preliminary CEPT position updated to distinguish active from passive RLS applications and to add several concepts for protection of existing services — the brief is converging on differentiated regulatory treatment (allocations below 275 GHz, identifications above, passive windows carved out).
  • 2026: no organized opposition; the main schedule risk is completing the passive-band compatibility analyses in time for the 23 Oct 2026 draft CPM text.
Likely: yes, with passive carve-outs

High-frequency items with short interference ranges and no incumbent evictions usually pass. Expect primary RLS allocations in parts of 231.5–275 GHz and identifications in selected windows of 275–700 GHz chosen to avoid the 5.565 passive bands, with protection language for RAS/EESS(passive)/SRS(passive).

1.9 Appendix 26 — aeronautical mobile (OR) HF modernization WP 5BRes 411 (WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

HF (3–30 MHz) refracts off the ionosphere, giving beyond-line-of-sight range with no satellite — which is why it remains the resilient fallback for aviation, and the primary layer where satcom is denied or unavailable. AM(OR)S — "off-route", in practice largely state/military aviation — operates under Appendix 26, a channel allotment plan engineered for 3 kHz SSB voice. Modern wideband HF (contiguous or non-contiguous multi-channel waveforms) can push data rates two orders of magnitude higher through the same ionosphere, but the plan's channelization and emission-class assumptions predate it. The item authorizes surgical modernization under two hard constraints: existing area allotments stay, and current narrowband use must be neither impacted nor precluded.

The controversy

Minimal — the constraints were engineered into the resolution precisely to defuse it. Residual questions: how wideband emissions coexist with narrowband users on adjacent allotted channels (HF interference is long-range by nature), and how much flexibility to build in without effectively rewriting the plan.

Working-party status

WP 5B defining wideband HF characteristics and running compatibility studies against existing AM(OR)S and co-band services; drafting of candidate App 26 modifications proceeding without visible blockage.

Camps

Pushing
US and allied defence aviation communities (wideband HF programmes); administrations modernizing state aviation HF.
Cautious / conditions
Administrations relying on legacy narrowband allotments — insisting the grandfathering language is airtight; otherwise no organized opposition.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 411): WP 5B working documents (carried in the Chair's Report annexes) are developing wideband HF system characteristics — multi-channel contiguous and non-contiguous waveforms — and compatibility with narrowband AM(OR)S operations on App 26 allotments; candidate revisions target emission-class provisions and channelling flexibility while leaving area allotments untouched.
  • 2025–2026: steady, low-drama progress; principal contributors are administrations with military wideband HF programmes. The grandfathering language for narrowband operations is the only text receiving real scrutiny.
Likely: revision adopted

An engineering item with a pre-agreed political settlement. Expect Appendix 26 updated with new emission classes/wideband provisions and explicit protection of existing narrowband operations.

1.10 Article 21 pfd/e.i.r.p. limits in E-band (71–76 / 81–86 GHz) WP 5CRes 775 (Rev.WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

E-band is where mobile backhaul lives: 71–76 GHz / 81–86 GHz carry multi-gigabit point-to-point links with pencil beams and light licensing, and 5G densification made them structural to network economics. The same bands are allocated to FSS/MSS/BSS — and NGSO systems now want them for feeder and high-capacity links. Article 21 is the RR's generic mechanism for this collision: hard pfd limits on satellite downlinks (so terrestrial receivers see a bounded power flux from the sky) and e.i.r.p./elevation constraints on earth stations (so uplinks don't blast the horizon where terrestrial receivers point). Today the E-band satellite allocations carry no Article 21 pfd limits — a gap that was tolerable when nobody flew there, and isn't anymore. The physics detail that makes this fight real: fixed-link receivers have very high-gain antennas pointed at low elevation angles, so even modest satellite downlink pfd can matter, while overly conservative limits can make satellite service in the band uneconomic.

The controversy

Not whether limits should exist — WRC-19 already flagged the gap — but the numbers. Every dB in the pfd mask transfers value between the terrestrial and satellite industries. Secondary fight: whether limits are hard Article 21 values (self-executing, no coordination) or softer coordination thresholds; and how "planned" future FS/MS deployments are weighted against actual ones in the derivation. The item also shadows the WRC-31 preliminary work on NGSO feeder links in the same bands — limits set now define that future item's feasibility.

Working-party status

WP 5C deriving candidate pfd/e.i.r.p. limits from FS/MS deployment and protection models; the usual assumption disputes (deployment density, antenna patterns, percentage-of-time criteria) map directly onto the industry split.

Camps

Pushing firm limits
Mobile operators and backhaul vendors (GSMA-aligned), CEPT with dense European E-band deployment, administrations with big terrestrial E-band licensing programmes.
Pushing headroom
NGSO operators eyeing E-band capacity (Starlink, Amazon Leo and successors), satellite-friendly administrations arguing limits must leave a viable satellite business case; some flexibility-minded regulators.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 775 Rev): WP 5C deriving candidate Article 21 pfd values (71–76 GHz, space-to-Earth) and e.i.r.p./coordination provisions (81–86 GHz, Earth-to-space) from FS/MS deployment models — link densities, antenna patterns (F.699/F.1245), percentage-of-time protection criteria — with satellite-side counter-studies testing service viability under each candidate mask.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): dedicated panel on AI 1.10; positions as expected — terrestrial camp pressing for firm Art 21 values, satellite camp for headroom or coordination-based alternatives.
  • 2026: the derivation-assumption fight (actual vs planned FS deployments, single-entry vs aggregate) is the live issue heading into the draft CPM text; the WRC-31 preliminary item 2.11 (EESS space-to-Earth in 40.5–52.4 GHz) and NGSO feeder-link ambitions in the same bands shadow every number.
Likely: limits adopted, values fought to the wire

Structural pressure favours adoption — both industries need regulatory certainty before investing, and "no limits" serves neither. Expect Article 21 pfd limits for 71–76 GHz and e.i.r.p./coordination provisions for 81–86 GHz, with the values landing between the camps' opening positions in classic dB-splitting fashion during the final plenary week.

1.11 MSS space-to-space links in L-band and 2.4 GHz MSS bands WP 4CRes 249 (Rev.WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

MSS allocations are directional by definition — Earth-to-space and space-to-Earth. A small NGSO satellite using a GSO L-band network (Inmarsat/Viasat-class) as a data relay is doing something the table doesn't describe: transmitting space-to-space. Operationally this already happens (GSO L-band operators sell relay/TT&C service to smallsats — a LEO satellite looks, to the GSO, like a fast-moving user terminal), but its regulatory status is improvised. AI 1.11 asks whether to legitimize it in 1 518–1 544, 1 545–1 559, 1 610–1 645.5, 1 646.5–1 660, 1 670–1 675 and 2 483.5–2 500 MHz, with links restricted to the same direction as the existing allocations (an NGSO transmitting "up" to GSO uses E-s spectrum in the same sense as a terminal on the ground — the geometry that keeps interference analysis tractable). The neighbourhood is unforgiving: RNSS/GNSS at 1 559–1 610 MHz sits between the candidate bands, RAS at 1 610.6–1 613.8 MHz sits inside one, and the aeronautical safety pedigree of L-band MSS (AMS(R)S priority) raises the assurance bar.

The controversy

Not whether relay service is useful, but whether NGSO transmitters distributed across the sky change the interference environment that terrestrial-facing MSS, GNSS (adjacent), and RAS (in-band) were planned around — a satellite transmitting from above has line-of-sight to receivers a ground terminal never sees. Also contested: the regulatory vehicle (MSS space-to-space provisions vs new inter-satellite service allocations), which affects coordination burden and Appendix 4 data requirements.

Working-party status

WP 4C characterizing the NGSO station classes involved and running sharing studies against in-band MSS, adjacent GNSS and RAS; CEPT brief and draft ECP under active revision (PTC, Mar 2026). Progress steady; the aeronautical-safety and GNSS-adjacency analyses are the pacing items.

Camps

Pushing
GSO L-band operators monetizing relay capacity (Viasat/Inmarsat sphere), smallsat/NGSO operators wanting lawful TT&C-by-relay, US and UK-aligned administrations.
Cautious / conditions
GNSS communities (adjacency to 1 559–1 610 MHz — post-Ligado sensitivities in the US federal side), RAS (1 610.6–1 613.8 MHz), aeronautical safety stakeholders (ICAO watch on AMS(R)S priority bands), and MSS operators not in the relay business wary of intra-service constraints.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 249 Rev): WP 4C characterizing the NGSO user-space-station classes (smallsat TT&C/data via GSO MSS relay), with sharing studies in-band against terrestrial-facing MSS (current and planned), adjacent-band analyses toward RNSS 1 559–1 610 MHz (GNSS protection criteria per Rec ITU-R M.1902/M.1903-class references) and RAS 1 610.6–1 613.8 MHz (RA.769), plus AMS(R)S priority preservation in the 1.5/1.6 GHz safety bands.
  • Mar 2026 (CEPT PTC#4, Edinburgh): CEPT brief and draft ECP revised — among the more advanced MSS-block texts, reflecting the item's relative tractability.
  • 2026: regulatory-vehicle question (MSS space-to-space provisions via footnote + Resolution vs new ISS allocations) still open in the draft methods; Appendix 4 data-element implications for space-to-space links are a BR-relevant detail to track.
Likely: enabling provisions with strict conditions

The same-direction-only design was chosen to make this approvable, and the commercial constituency is real but not threatening to any bloc. Expect adoption of MSS space-to-space provisions (probably via footnotes plus a Resolution) with hard conditions: no additional constraints on terrestrial-facing MSS, GNSS-adjacency emission limits, RAS protection, and safety-service priority preserved. NOC only if GNSS-adjacency studies sour.

1.12 Low-data-rate NGSO MSS (satellite IoT) WP 4CRes 252 (WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

Satellite IoT is the low end of the link-budget spectrum: kilobit-class bursts from cheap sensors to smallsat constellations. The physics is friendly — narrowband signals, low duty cycles, modest power — which is the proponents' core argument: systems this quiet should be able to slot into slivers of spectrum without anyone noticing. The candidate slivers, though, sit in expensive real estate: 1 427–1 432 MHz is the bottom of the L-band IMT range harmonized after WRC-15; 1 880–1 920 MHz is DECT's European home and IMT TDD spectrum elsewhere; 2 010–2 025 MHz is unpaired IMT/former MSS spectrum with a complicated history; 1 645.5–1 646.5 MHz touches GMDSS-adjacent L-band. The counter-principle: "quiet" is a claim about one system — allocations are forever and set precedents for aggregate loading, and mobile industry experience is that secondary users rarely stay small.

The controversy

Definition and precedent. What technically bounds a "low-data-rate" system so the allocation can't be grown into broadband later (the US has pressed for a rigorous definition)? Can uplinks from unknown numbers of unlicensed-feeling IoT devices be squared with licensed IMT downlink protection in 1 427–1 432 MHz? DECT interests make 1 880–1 920 MHz close to untouchable in Europe. Overlap with AIs 1.13/1.14 candidate bands forces cross-item consistency (Canada and Brazil have pushed this point in CITEL).

Working-party status

WP 4C studying spectrum needs, characteristics, intra-LDR coexistence and sharing against IMT/DECT/aeronautical/maritime incumbents; CEPT contributed studies for 2 010–2 025 MHz (PTC, Mar 2026). GSMA's assessment — that the narrow candidates lack a clean home — is the sceptics' summary of where studies stand.

Camps

Pushing
Satellite IoT operators and their administrations; Canada, US and Colombia formally supportive of studies in CITEL; developing administrations valuing cheap wide-area sensing (agriculture, logistics, environment).
Resisting / restricting
Mobile industry (GSMA: any outcome must protect IMT — effectively secondary status); European DECT stakeholders on 1 880–1 920 MHz; administrations with L-band IMT assignments in 1 427–1 432 MHz.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 252): WP 4C studying spectrum requirements, LDR-MSS system characteristics, intra-LDR coexistence (multiple constellations in slivers), and band-by-band sharing: 1 427–1 432 MHz vs IMT downlinks; 1 880–1 920 MHz vs DECT (Europe) and IMT TDD; 2 010–2 025 MHz jointly with AI 1.14 treatment; 1 645.5–1 646.5 MHz vs GMDSS-adjacent L-band MSS.
  • Feb 2026 (GSMA status assessment): the narrow candidate bands still "lack specific spectrum requirements" and the LDR-MSS description remains ambiguous — the definitional gap is now the item's central weakness, because without an agreed technical bound on "low data rate" the sharing studies cannot close.
  • 2026: CEPT contributed sharing studies for 2 010–2 025 MHz (PTC#4 output to WP 4C); WG 4C1 is attempting a unified method across the overlapping 1.12/1.13/1.14 bands — the cross-item consistency demand (Canada, Brazil in CITEL) is being engineered into the CPM text structure itself.
Likely: band-by-band split decision

The item will not pass or fail as a block. Most probable: 1 880–1 920 MHz fails (DECT/IMT wall in Region 1), 1 427–1 432 MHz survives only with stringent conditions if at all, and the best prospects are 2 010–2 025 MHz (coordinated with AI 1.14's treatment of the same band) and the narrow 1 645.5–1 646.5 MHz segment — all on a no-protection-from/no-constraint-on-IMT basis with a tight LDR definition baked into the enabling Resolution.

1.13 Direct-to-device: MSS for satellite–smartphone connectivity (DC-MSS-IMT) WP 4C (+ WP 5D)Res 253 (WRC-23)Battleground

Background — first principles

An unmodified smartphone has ~200 mW of transmit power and an antenna designed to reach a tower a few km away. Closing that link to a satellite 500+ km up requires enormous spacecraft antennas (AST's BlueBird class), tight beams, and — crucially — frequencies the phone already supports: the IMT bands between 694/698 MHz and 2.7 GHz. That creates the regulatory paradox: the spectrum that makes D2D possible is precisely the spectrum sold to terrestrial mobile operators under national licences. Today's services (Starlink/T-Mobile SCS, AST partnerships, Apple/Globalstar) run on national authorizations using an MNO partner's own spectrum — legal domestically, but a satellite beam is hundreds of km wide and does not respect the borders that national licences assume. AI 1.13 asks whether the RR should contain an international MSS framework for this — a new allocation class in IMT bands — and if so, how a satellite sharing an MNO's frequency in country A avoids degrading a different MNO's network using the same frequency in neighbouring country B. The power asymmetry cuts both ways: satellite downlinks are faint (easily overwhelmed but also easily masked), while terrestrial uplink noise aggregated across a whole country is visible from orbit.

The controversy

Whose spectrum is it? MNOs and GSMA insist terrestrial IMT keeps absolute priority — satellite as effectively secondary, never constraining terrestrial deployment, with cross-border protection guaranteed by hard technical measures. Satellite proponents argue an over-constrained framework just entrenches today's ad-hoc national approach (arguably fine for those already operating — the US has an SCS framework domestically, which tempers its urgency). Under the surface: whether an international framework helps or hurts first movers, how SNO/MNO responsibility splits work (APT has pressed the authorization-roles question), and country-consent mechanics — does service require agreement of every administration in the beam? The study-scope fight (frequency-arrangement list growth vs finishing on time) is a proxy for all of it.

Working-party status

The heaviest workload in WP 4C: 30–50 inputs per meeting, two drafting groups. Terminology agreed ("DC-MSS-IMT"), but the operational concept/system description is still not fully settled — the prerequisite for compatibility conclusions. Three calculation approaches for protecting terrestrial IMT are under parallel evaluation; WP 5D is finalizing terrestrial-IMT protection measures for handoff to WP 4C (~Oct 2026) for the draft CPM text. The candidate frequency-arrangement list (from Rec M.1036) is long and politically loaded. Europe is running a parallel EC Mandate on D2D-IMT coordinated through CEPT/SE40.

Camps

Pushing a framework
D2D satellite operators (AST SpaceMobile, Lynk, Starlink for SCS expansion) and partner-friendly administrations; administrations with coverage gaps seeing D2D as rural/disaster connectivity (parts of APT, Africa, Latin America); China active in APT drafting leadership.
Resisting / constraining
GSMA and MNOs globally (protect-IMT-at-all-costs framing); CEPT/EU building a terrestrial-primacy framework; administrations protective of spectrum-auction value; some US satellite interests ambivalent — an ITU framework could constrain flexibility they already enjoy nationally.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 253): studies span spectrum needs, DC-MSS-IMT system characteristics, frequency arrangements (per Rec ITU-R M.1036), sharing with terrestrial IMT co-frequency across borders, adjacent services (incl. RAS at 608–614 MHz and 1 400–1 427 MHz passive adjacencies depending on arrangement), and regulatory conditions. Three candidate calculation approaches for cross-border terrestrial-IMT protection are under parallel evaluation — pfd-based limits at the border, coordination-distance methodology, and percentage-degradation criteria.
  • Oct 2026 deadline chain: WP 5D is finalizing the regulatory measures for protection of the terrestrial IMT component with handoff to WP 4C in time for the 23 Oct 2026 draft CPM text — the hardest deadline dependency of the cycle.
  • Apr 2026 (WP 4C): CPM text development formally started at this meeting per plan — with the operational concept still not fully agreed, meaning the methods are being drafted around an unsettled system description; brackets will be extensive.
  • Mar 2026 (CEPT PTC#4): reply liaison to SE40 on studies under the European Commission Mandate on D2D-IMT — Europe is building its regional regulatory framework in parallel with (and partly ahead of) the ITU track.
  • Market backdrop: commercial SCS/D2D service launches keep accelerating under national frameworks (US SCS regime, various bilateral MNO deals), progressively converting the ITU question from "whether" to "how to internationalize what already exists".
Likely: conditioned framework, partial bands — spillover risk to WRC-31

Commercial momentum makes pure NOC unlikely — too many administrations want D2D legitimized. But the operational-concept impasse and the sheer study volume put the timeline at genuine risk: if the concept isn't nailed by late 2026, CPM methods will be thin and the conference will hedge. Most probable outcome: MSS allocations in a subset of candidate bands (not the full 694–2 700 MHz sweep) on a basis that subordinates the satellite component to terrestrial IMT — no protection from, no constraints on, terrestrial networks — with explicit cross-border protection measures and likely country-consent elements, plus a Resolution continuing work toward WRC-31 for the rest. The all-bands, full-framework outcome and the total-failure outcome are both tail cases.

1.14 Additional MSS allocations around 2 GHz WP 4CRes 254 (WRC-23)Battleground

Background — first principles

The 2 GHz region is the historical MSS heartland (the 1 980–2 010 / 2 170–2 200 MHz pair) — and everything around it became IMT. The candidates: 2 010–2 025 MHz (E-s) and 2 160–2 170 MHz (s-E) in Regions 1 and 3, plus 2 120–2 160 MHz (s-E) in all Regions. That last one is the shocker — it overlaps the AWS downlink block that carries live commercial mobile traffic across the Americas, and paired IMT downlinks elsewhere. A satellite downlink dropped on top of a terrestrial downlink is the least-bad geometry (both point the same way; handset receivers see the satellite as weak wide-area noise), which is the proponents' physics argument. The counterargument is economic and absolute: administrations auctioned exclusive terrestrial rights in these bands, and MNOs treat any co-primary space service as a cloud on title.

The controversy

Essentially AI 1.13's spectrum fight without AI 1.13's political sweetener (universal-coverage narrative). 2 120–2 160 MHz all-Regions is a direct challenge to the Americas' AWS regime — the US mobile industry treats it as a red line, and Region 2's exclusion from the other two sub-bands shows the drafters knew it. In Regions 1/3 the 2 010–2 025 / 2 160–2 170 MHz pieces are more arguable: the 2 GHz MSS neighbourhood is underused in Europe, and some administrations see MSS expansion as more productive than the band's current limbo. Consistency with AIs 1.12/1.13 (2 010–2 025 MHz appears in both) is a recurring CITEL demand.

Working-party status

WP 4C running spectrum-needs and sharing studies (co-channel and adjacent against IMT, plus SRS/space-ops neighbours around 2 025–2 110 / 2 200–2 290 MHz). CEPT brief revised with ECP elements in development. Study conclusions on IMT protection will decide whether any method beyond NOC survives into the CPM Report for 2 120–2 160 MHz.

Camps

Pushing
MSS operators seeking growth spectrum (2 GHz incumbents and D2D-adjacent players); some Region 1/3 administrations open on the R1/R3 sub-bands.
Resisting
Mobile industry globally (GSMA explicit); US carriers and likely the US administration on 2 120–2 160 MHz; administrations protecting auction value and SRS/space-operations adjacencies (the 2 025–2 110 / 2 200–2 290 MHz space-ops bands are sacrosanct to space agencies).

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 254): spectrum-requirement studies plus sharing/compatibility against IMT (co-channel, adjacent), existing 2 GHz MSS, and the SRS/space-operation bands at 2 025–2 110 / 2 200–2 290 MHz — the space-agency adjacency that quietly constrains all three sub-bands.
  • Early 2026: a No-Change method is already included in the draft CPM text — the earliest formal NOC positioning of any WRC-27 item, per industry status reporting (GSMA, Feb 2026). Compatibility studies continue in parallel but with methodologies still described as unclear.
  • 2026: CEPT brief revised with ECP elements (PTC#4); WG 4C1's unified-method effort ties the fate of 2 010–2 025 MHz here to its treatment under AI 1.12. Region 2 mobile-industry opposition to 2 120–2 160 MHz remains categorical.
Likely: highest NOC risk in the MSS block

2 120–2 160 MHz all-Regions has no realistic path past a united mobile industry and a defensive Region 2 — expect NOC there. The Regions 1/3 sub-bands (2 010–2 025 / 2 160–2 170 MHz) have a modest chance of conditioned allocations if European administrations conclude the 2 GHz corridor is better used by MSS — but even that is contested. Base case: NOC or a narrow R1/R3-only outcome tightly conditioned against IMT, decided jointly with AI 1.12's treatment of 2 010–2 025 MHz.

1.15 Lunar communications — an SRS framework for the Moon WP 7BRes 680 (WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

The Radio Regulations were built for Earth: allocations govern emissions relative to Earth's surface and orbits, and lunar operations have historically been shoe-horned into space research service (SRS) Earth–space links plus ad-hoc arrangements. A sustained lunar presence changes the problem class: surface-to-surface networks (habitats, rovers, EVA), orbit-to-surface relays, and eventually navigation — none of which the current SRS (space-to-space) provisions cleanly cover, and all of which will be built by multiple uncoordinated national and commercial programmes in the same decade. Candidate ranges deliberately reuse familiar terrestrial technology bands so COTS hardware works: 390–406.1 / 420–430 / 440–450 MHz (proximity/EVA, outside the Shielded Zone of the Moon), 2 400–2 690 MHz, 3 500–3 800 MHz, 5 150–5 725 / 5 775–5 925 MHz (Wi-Fi-derived surface networks), 7 190–7 235 / 8 450–8 500 MHz (established SRS), 25.25–28.35 GHz (high-rate). The binding physical constraint: the Shielded Zone of the Moon (far side plus a buffer) is the only place in the inner solar system permanently screened from Earth's radio noise — the future site of low-frequency cosmology telescopes — and Article 22.22-25 already protects it; the framework must not erode that.

The controversy

Low, and mostly technical-institutional: how much to regulate now versus leave to inter-agency coordination (the interoperability work is really happening in space-agency fora — LunaNet et al.; the ITU layer legitimizes and deconflicts); how strictly to protect the SZM and RAS/passive sensing near the Moon; and whether existing SRS definitions can stretch or new allocation text is needed. A latent geopolitical undertone — US-led Artemis vs China-led ILRS ecosystems both want the framework, which paradoxically makes it consensual.

Working-party status

WP 7B progressing spectrum needs, characteristics, lunar propagation and sharing analyses. CEPT PTA produced a first draft ECP already (Feb 2026) — early by CEPT standards. US, European, Japanese and Chinese programmes all engaged constructively.

Camps

Pushing
US (a WRC-23 priority win to get this item), ESA member administrations, Japan, China, India, Korea — every administration with lunar ambitions; commercial lunar sector.
Cautious / conditions
Radio astronomy community on SZM integrity and future far-side science; science services wanting protection criteria settled before allocations, not after.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 680): WP 7B examining spectrum needs and characteristics of lunar-surface and orbit-to-surface systems; lunar-vicinity propagation; protection criteria for RAS and passive sensing on/near the Moon (SZM per Article 22.22–22.25 and Rec ITU-R RA.479); and the definitional question of whether existing SRS (space-to-space) provisions cover surface-to-surface links (RR Nos. 1.8/1.63/1.64 interpretation). The candidate bands deliberately track terrestrial COTS ecosystems (UHF proximity, 2.4/5 GHz Wi-Fi-derived, established SRS X-band pairs, 25.25–28.35 GHz high-rate).
  • Feb 2026 (CEPT PTA#4): first version of a draft ECP developed — unusually early formalization, signalling CEPT expects this item to land cleanly.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): dedicated panel; interoperability work (LunaNet-style inter-agency frameworks) continues in parallel outside ITU, with the WRC item positioned as the treaty-level deconfliction layer.
Likely: framework adopted

Rare alignment of every space power plus a clean scientific red line to build around. Expect new/modified SRS (space-to-space) provisions and a lunar-communications Resolution covering the studied ranges, with SZM protections restated and RAS/passive protection criteria attached. The unresolved details (lunar navigation, longer-term band growth) will seed WRC-31 work.

1.16 Radio astronomy vs mega-constellations: Radio Quiet Zones & aggregate interference WP 7DRes 681 (WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

A radio telescope integrates for hours to detect signals at levels around −180 dBW class — orders of magnitude below any communications receiver's noise floor. The RR protect RAS through allocated quiet bands (RA.769 thresholds) and, historically, geography: build the dish somewhere remote, and terrestrial transmitters stay below the horizon. NGSO constellations defeat both defences at once. Geography fails because satellites are above every horizon — a remote site sees the same sky as a city. And per-system compliance fails because unwanted emissions from thousands of satellites across multiple systems add: each operator can meet its own limits while the aggregate drowns the band (documented with Starlink emissions near RAS bands). National Radio Quiet Zones (the Karoo around SKA-Mid, Murchison around SKA-Low, the US NRQZ) control terrestrial transmitters by law but have no status in the RR — a foreign satellite owes them nothing. Res 681 opens both fronts: aggregate unwanted-emission studies into globally-primary RAS bands, and possible RR recognition of RQZs.

The controversy

Whether protection becomes binding. The science side (and SKA host states) wants enforceable aggregate limits and RQZ recognition with real coordination obligations (e.g., computed separation distances for NGSO gateways near RQZ sites). The satellite side accepts coordination and mitigation in principle but resists treaty-level aggregate limits — aggregate responsibility is fiendish to apportion across independent operators (whose satellite is the overage?) and any hard limit becomes a design constraint on entire constellations. Brazil has explicitly cautioned that the RQZ resolves must not alter FSS allocations or impose new NGSO constraints; the US promotes voluntary best-practice tools.

Working-party status

WP 7D running single-system and aggregate unwanted-emission studies, RQZ characterization, coexistence-measure and gateway-separation-distance methodologies. The methodology itself (how to model aggregation across dissimilar systems) is contested groundwork. Mexico has encouraged direct CITEL–RQZ-country collaboration on practical mitigation.

Camps

Pushing protection
SKA host states (South Africa, Australia) and partners; radio astronomy community globally (IAU/CRAF/committed observatories); CEPT broadly protective (major European RAS facilities); scientifically-aligned administrations across regions.
Resisting binding measures
NGSO operators and flag administrations — US position favours voluntary best-practice coexistence tools without new constraints; Brazil guarding against FSS-allocation side effects; operators generally, on aggregate-apportionment grounds.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 681): WP 7D (working documents in the Chair's Report annexes) developing: single-entry and aggregate unwanted-emission methodologies for NGSO systems into globally-primary RAS bands (RA.769 thresholds, epfd-style aggregation per RA.1513 data-loss criteria); RQZ characterization (the resolution itself notes a small number of remote RAS stations of the utmost importance); and separation-distance computation methods between NGSO gateway earth stations and RQZ-protected RAS stations.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): dedicated RQZ panel — SKA host states pressed for meaningful RR recognition; operator-side interventions steered toward voluntary coordination frameworks.
  • 2025–2026 (CITEL): positions on record — support for the resolves 1–2 aggregate studies (several administrations), Brazil cautioning that resolves 3–6 must not alter FSS allocations or add NGSO constraints, the US promoting voluntary best-practice tools, Mexico encouraging direct collaboration with RQZ countries.
  • Methodology fight: how to apportion an aggregate budget across independent, dissimilar constellations remains the unresolved technical core — whatever lands in the CPM text here sets the precedent for every future aggregate-interference debate (including the Art 22 epfd successor work).
Likely: soft recognition, no binding aggregate limits

The precedent field (Res 739 and RAS-protection history) points one way: conferences acknowledge RAS aggregate problems in resolutions and recommendations, not hard limits. Expect a Resolution recognizing RQZ characteristics and encouraging (not mandating) coordination — possibly with a defined consultation mechanism for gateways near listed sites — plus continued ITU-R methodology work. Binding epfd-style aggregate limits for unwanted emissions are very unlikely at this conference; the significance is that the aggregate-interference concept gets its first treaty-adjacent foothold, setting up harder asks at WRC-31.

1.17 Space weather sensors — recognition and protection WP 7CRes 682 (WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

Space weather monitoring — solar radio flux monitors, riometers, ionosondes — quietly underpins modern infrastructure: solar-storm warnings protect power grids, aviation polar routes, GNSS integrity and satellites. Many of these instruments are receive-only, listening at specific physics-determined frequencies (solar emission lines, ionospheric absorption windows). A receive-only station cannot interfere with anyone, but under the RR it also cannot be protected or even formally recorded unless its service has an allocation. WRC-23 created the definitional fix (MetAids "space weather" category); AI 1.17 delivers the substance: possible primary receive-only allocations in 27.5–28 MHz, 29.7–30.2 MHz, 32.3–32.6 MHz, 37.5–38.325 MHz, 73–74.6 MHz and 608–614 MHz, plus MIFR notification provisions — with the disarming condition, written into the resolution, that new allocations shall not claim protection from, nor constrain, incumbents in these or adjacent bands.

The controversy

Nearly none — the no-protection/no-constraint clause pre-paid the political cost. Residual debate is drafting-level: what "recognition" means operationally if protection cannot be claimed (answer: visibility in the MIFR enables national and neighbourly coordination goodwill), and keeping the precedent clean so incumbents in bands like 608–614 MHz (broadcasting/RAS neighbourhood, regionally sensitive) see zero exposure.

Working-party status

WP 7C progressing sensor characteristics, spectrum needs, protection criteria and per-band compatibility confirmation; WMO strongly engaged. APT drafting group (Japan-chaired) and CEPT PTA both maintaining constructive briefs.

Camps

Pushing
WMO and national meteorological/space-weather agencies; US, Japan, Europe uniformly; effectively every administration with critical-infrastructure exposure to solar events.
Cautious / conditions
Only incumbents verifying the no-constraint language is watertight — broadcasting interests around 608–614 MHz being the most attentive.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 682): WP 7C confirming sensor characteristics and protection criteria per candidate band, and drafting the MIFR notification provisions for receive-only stations — the genuinely novel regulatory engineering of the item (recording stations that can claim no protection). Res 682 already locks the political settlement: new allocations shall not claim protection from, nor constrain, incumbents in-band or adjacent.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): WP 7C chair (Bruno Espinosa) briefed the item — presented as on track and uncontroversial.
  • 2026: WMO engagement steady; drafting attention on the 608–614 MHz entry (broadcasting/RAS neighbourhood) to keep the no-constraint language airtight.
Likely: adopted as designed

The item was engineered at WRC-23 to be approvable. Expect the receive-only MetAids (space weather) allocations and MIFR notification provisions adopted with the no-protection/no-constraint conditions intact — plausibly among the first items gavelled through.

1.18 Protecting EESS (passive) and RAS above 76 GHz from unwanted emissions WP 7C / WP 7DRes 712 (WRC-23)Contested

Background — first principles

Passive microwave sensing reads the atmosphere's own thermal emission at physics-fixed frequencies — oxygen and water-vapour lines that exist nowhere else, feeding numerical weather prediction and climate records. A radiometer cannot distinguish natural emission from man-made leakage; interference doesn't degrade the data, it corrupts it silently. The RR instrument for this is Resolution 750: mandatory unwanted-emission limits on specific active services adjacent to specific passive bands. Above 76 GHz the Res 750 table is sparse because, until recently, nothing much transmitted there. That's ending — E-band links, automotive radar's neighbours, and prospective satellite services are populating the region. AI 1.18 works through defined pairs: EESS (passive) at 86–92, 114.25–116, 164–167, 200–209 GHz against their active neighbours, and RAS at 76–81, 130–134, 164–167, 226–231.5 GHz against adjacent FSS/MSS/BSS/RNSS bands. Note the direct coupling to AI 1.10: the 71–76/81–86 GHz services being enabled there are among the neighbours being constrained here.

The controversy

Per-pair economics. Each candidate limit is a filtering/guard-band cost imposed on an active industry to protect a sensing capability — the fight is over whether limits are mandatory Res 750 entries (treaty-binding) or hortatory recommendations, and over the values. The 76–81 GHz RAS vs 71–76 GHz satellite pair is the most commercially loaded given AI 1.10's traffic; the 200+ GHz pairs are cheap to concede because deployments are hypothetical.

Working-party status

WP 7C/7D running the pair-by-pair compatibility studies; CEPT PTA already produced a first ECP version (Feb 2026), among the most advanced regional texts on any science item.

Camps

Pushing limits
WMO/meteorological agencies, space agencies (EUMETSAT/NOAA/JAXA-aligned administrations), radio astronomy community; CEPT broadly.
Resisting hard limits
Active-service industries per pair: satellite operators for the 71–76 GHz-adjacent case; fixed-service interests around 111.8–114.25 and 158.5–174.5 GHz; administrations preferring recommendations over mandatory Res 750 entries.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 712): pair-by-pair compatibility studies — EESS (passive) protection criteria per Rec ITU-R RS.2017 against modelled unwanted-emission levels of the adjacent active services; RAS pairs assessed against RA.769. Outcome options per pair: mandatory Res 750-table entries, recommended limits, or NOC.
  • Feb 2026 (CEPT PTA#4): brief updated and a first draft ECP produced — CEPT is running ahead of other regions on this item, consistent with European EESS/meteorology equities.
  • 2026: the 76–81 GHz RAS pair (adjacent to the AI 1.10 satellite bands) is emerging as the commercially loaded case; the 200+ GHz pairs are progressing without resistance.
Likely: pair-by-pair mixed outcome

History of Res 750 items says: mandatory limits pass where the active service is still hypothetical, and soften to recommendations (or NOC) where real deployments would pay. Expect new Res 750-style entries for several higher pairs, negotiated recommended values around the E-band-adjacent cases, and at least one pair ending NOC. The whole package will be settled alongside AI 1.10 as a de facto E-band bundle.

1.19 EESS (passive) allocations at 4 200–4 400 and 8 400–8 500 MHz WP 7CRes 674 (WRC-23)Low heat

Background — first principles

Sea-surface temperature radiometry needs C-band-region frequencies (the physics optimum for seeing the ocean surface through cloud and atmosphere), and the traditional passive windows around 6–7 GHz are increasingly polluted by terrestrial expansion — including the very IMT growth this conference advances elsewhere. The escape hatch: 4 200–4 400 MHz and 8 400–8 500 MHz happen to be radio-quiet in practice, because their incumbents are airborne radio altimeters (a safety service that transmits downward from aircraft) and SRS deep-space downlinks — both spatially and spectrally benign to a spaceborne radiometer looking at the ocean. The proposal inverts the usual ask: give the sensors a primary allocation explicitly without protection from existing services — a "safe harbour" that records the use and deters future new services from moving in, while costing incumbents nothing. Europe flagged at WRC-23 that delivering this at WRC-27 is a point of committed policy.

The controversy

Minimal by construction. Aviation (ICAO) watches to ensure the altimeter band text is literally untouchable — post-5G-altimeter-saga sensitivity guarantees careful drafting — and SRS interests confirm the 8 400–8 450 MHz deep-space adjacency stays clean. The only real debate is philosophical: whether no-protection allocations dilute the meaning of "primary" (a precedent argument, not an operational one).

Working-party status

WP 7C confirming radiometer characteristics and the zero-constraint proposition band by band; no organized opposition in evidence.

Camps

Pushing
WMO, EUMETSAT/ESA-aligned European administrations (stated EU policy commitment), NOAA/NASA-aligned US interests, Japan; climate-science constituency globally.
Cautious / conditions
ICAO/aviation on altimeter-band drafting hygiene; occasional in-principle objections to no-protection primary allocations.

Latest developments

  • Study framework (Res 674): WP 7C confirming radiometer characteristics (SST/soil-moisture sensing bandwidth and sensitivity needs) and verifying the zero-constraint proposition band by band — aeronautical radionavigation (radio altimeters) at 4 200–4 400 MHz, SRS deep-space at 8 400–8 450 MHz adjacency.
  • Dec 2025 (IRIS-25): dedicated panel on the SST allocations — framed around climate-record continuity as C-band terrestrial congestion grows.
  • 2026: no organized opposition; drafting hygiene on the altimeter-band text (post-5G-altimeter sensitivity) is the only active workstream.
Likely: adopted

A no-cost ask with committed sponsors. Expect both allocations adopted with the no-protection conditions verbatim from Res 674.

05Standing and procedural items

Recurring items — but AI 7 changes more day-to-day BR practice than most 1.x items, and AI 10 is where the next war is scheduled.

7 Satellite regulatory procedures (Res 86) WP 4ARes 86 (Rev.WRC-07)Battleground

Background — first principles

The rolling review of Articles 9/11 and the Plan appendices — advance publication, coordination, notification, recording. First principles: the filing system trades paper priority for orbital reality through milestones (bringing into use under No. 11.44B, Res 35 deployment milestones for NGSO, suspension rules under No. 11.49). Every cycle, operators probe the boundaries (BIU with a single repositioned satellite, suspension timing games, No. 4.4 non-conforming operations) and the Bureau/RRB surface inconsistencies. Historically, WP 4A agrees a set of lettered Topics early in the cycle, studies them, and delivers a manageable package to the conference.

The controversy — and an unprecedented situation

This cycle broke the pattern. Eleven candidate issues were identified at the May 2025 WP 4A meeting, but the group reached early 2026 — unprecedented at this stage of a study cycle — without consensus on a single agreed Topic, with the chairs reduced to issuing a non-binding request to administrations to converge. A delicate compromise on a core set (roughly five topics, possibly a sixth) was described as almost achieved at the most recent meetings. The deadlock is structural: filing-system incumbents want narrow, well-scoped procedural fixes; other administrations and newer entrants are pushing topics that touch coordination priority, plan-band equity and warehousing behaviour — exactly the areas incumbents refuse to open.

The candidate topics on the table

  • Restraining repeated BIU/BBIU: using the same or different satellites to repeatedly bring into use and bring back into use the same assignments for short periods — the anti-warehousing topic; GSOA opposes elevating it, citing Res 40 statistics as insufficient evidence.
  • No. 11.41 recording reform: Bureau statistics (Doc 4A/250, Oct 2024) show 60–90% of recordings in some bands invoke No. 11.41 (recording after unsuccessful coordination) — proposals aim to push coordination back into Article 9 with incentives and clarified requirements, e.g. evidence of coordination efforts via submission of a coordination letter.
  • No. 4.4 transparency: measures and improvements for the application of RR No. 4.4 to space systems (non-conforming operations) — sensitive given how many NGSO deployments lean on it.
  • Coordination-arc extension: assessing arcs for bands above 3.4 GHz and services not currently subject to the arc concept, plus review of existing arc thresholds.
  • Res 170 / App 30B revision: making the additional-measures mechanism for equitable access to App 30B actually deliver — the AI 1.6 debate in procedural clothing.
  • Inter-regional FSS/BSS plan protection: long-term protection of planned BSS against misaligned FSS service/coverage areas from other regions.
  • Plus suspension-mechanics, e-communication modernization and Bureau-flagged clean-ups in the usual pattern.

Camps

Pushing an ambitious topic set
Administrations concerned by warehousing and plan-band equity (developing administrations, several Region 1 states); parts of the NGSO-new-entrant community on 11.41/transparency topics.
Pushing a minimal set
Established GSO operators and their administrations (SES publicly urging a manageable, tightly-scoped list and warning against merging initiatives); GSOA opposing the BIU-restraint topic; administrations wary of reopening coordination priority in any form.

Latest developments

  • May 2025 (WP 4A): eleven candidate issues captured in Chair's Report annexes — the widest AI 7 field in recent cycles.
  • Late 2025 – early 2026 (WP 4A, Geneva): still no agreed Topics; chairs of SWG 4A3c/WG 4A3/WP 4A issue a non-binding convergence request — an unprecedented position this late in a cycle. A compromise core of ~5 topics plus at most one additional ITEM*-labelled subject (from Annex 53 of the Chair's Report) is the emerging landing zone.
  • Feb 2026: operator-side public positioning (SES) supports capping the list and accepting at most the 11.41 coordination-letter topic as a sixth — the clearest signal of where the incumbent bloc will settle.
  • Implication: topics not agreed in time effectively die — without study time before the 23 Oct 2026 draft CPM text, the conference receives nothing actionable. The deadlock is itself a filtering mechanism, and it favours the minimal-set camp.
Likely: compressed package, contested topics squeezed out

The calendar now does the blockers' work: expect a final set of roughly five to six tightly-scoped topics — procedural modernization, 11.41-related incentives, possibly a constrained transparency element — with BIU-restraint and plan-equity topics either dropped or reduced to study-continuation resolutions. For BR-facing work, this item plus AI 9.2 will still drive the concrete post-2027 changes to examination and coordination practice, but the package will be thinner than the eleven-issue field implied.

2 / 4 / 8 / 9 IBR texts · Resolution review · Country footnotes · Director's Report VariousLow heat

What they are

  • AI 2 — update references to revised ITU-R Recommendations incorporated by reference (Res 27); SG 3 propagation texts are the usual traffic.
  • AI 4 — housekeeping review of prior conferences' Resolutions/Recommendations (Res 95).
  • AI 8 — deletion of country footnotes on request (Res 26); administrative.
  • AI 9.1 — Director's Report on ITU-R activities, now strictly fenced (a WRC-23 tightening) so substantive topics can't be smuggled in. AI 9.2 — difficulties/inconsistencies in applying the RR: the channel through which BR- and RRB-identified problems get fixed; watch the Director's Report drafts through 2026–27. AI 9.3 — Res 80 (due diligence/equitable access principles), feeding the same debate as AI 1.6.
Likely: routine, with AI 9.2 the sleeper

Standing items resolve predictably; AI 9.2 is the one to read carefully — its fixes are quietly consequential for filing examination practice.

10 The WRC-31 agenda — scheduling the next war PlenaryRes 814 (WRC-23) / Res 804Battleground

What's queued

The Res 814 preliminary list (full item-by-item treatment in the WRC-31 section below) already contains the deferred explosives: possible aeronautical mobile use of IMT bands (candidates around 694–960 MHz R1 / 890–942 MHz R2 / 3 400–3 700 MHz R3 — flagged at WRC-23 as unresolved on band scope and incumbent protection), allocations in 275–325 GHz, NGSO FSS feeder links at 71–76/81–86 GHz (colliding with whatever AI 1.10 decides), UAS, and more. On top of that, expect hard pushes to convert this cycle's unfinished business into items: Article 22 epfd revision (the NGSO camp's top structural goal — see below), leftover AI 1.13 D2D scope, and whatever AI 1.7 doesn't settle.

Likely: epfd fight headlines AI 10

The agenda-setting negotiation in the final week will be dominated by whether an epfd-revision item gets through over GSO-operator resistance, and by the shape of the next IMT item. Historically the demandeurs get their items, trimmed.

06WRC-31 preliminary agenda — the next cycle, item by item

Resolution 814 (WRC-23) sets out 14 preliminary items (2.1–2.14) for WRC-31. Square brackets in the resolution text mark provisionally-listed bands — signals of unresolved WRC-23 disagreement. Formal responsible-group studies begin after WRC-27 (CPM31-1), but the enabling ITU-R Resolutions are already driving preliminary work, and the real near-term action is at WRC-27 under agenda item 10, where each of these gets confirmed, reshaped, or joined by new items (an Article 22 epfd revision item being the most heavily trailed addition). Cards below: what each item is, why it was queued, early camp structure, and outlook for how AI 10 and the 2027–2031 cycle treat it.

2.1 Allocations in 275–325 GHz — extending the Table's ceiling Res 721 (WRC-23)Low heat

What it is and why it's queued

Potential new allocations to fixed, mobile, radiolocation, amateur, amateur-satellite, radio astronomy, EESS (passive and active) and SRS (passive) in 275–325 GHz, with consequential updates to Nos. 5.149, 5.340, 5.564A and 5.565. First principles: above 275 GHz the Table of Frequency Allocations currently ends — the region is managed only through identifications (5.564A for FS/LMS, 5.565 for passive). As sub-THz technology matures (WRC-27 AI 1.8 imaging, 6G fronthaul research, THz spectroscopy), the identification regime becomes insufficient: identifications confer no allocation status, no coordination framework, no MIFR recording basis. This item converts the top of the managed spectrum into normal allocation territory.

Camps and outlook

Broadly technical and consensual — the same active/passive geometry as AI 1.8, with the passive community defending the 5.565 windows and every prospective active user wanting allocation certainty. Amateur inclusion is a minor novelty. Expect confirmation at WRC-27 AI 10 without much resistance and a WP 1A/5-series + 7-series study structure next cycle. The outcome will likely be the first substantive extension of the allocation table above 275 GHz, with passive bands hard-protected.

2.2 Wireless power transmission — the bracketed item Res 910 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

The entire item sits in square brackets: [possible [frequency bands] for [non-beam and beam] WPT to avoid harmful interference to radiocommunication services caused by WPT]. First principles: WPT — from EV charging pads (non-beam, ~kHz, massive harmonic emissions) to microwave/laser beam power delivery concepts (including space-based solar power at GW scale) — is not a radiocommunication service; it radiates energy without conveying information, so it fits the RR framework awkwardly. The question is whether the RR should designate bands/conditions for WPT primarily to protect radiocommunications from it, not to give WPT rights. Beam WPT at scale (space solar demos from Japan, China, US, ESA-adjacent programmes) would be an interference source of unprecedented power density.

Camps and outlook

SG 1 (spectrum management) has run WPT studies for years with chronic disagreement about whether ITU-R or CISPR/IEC is the right home for non-beam WPT emission limits. Administrations with space-solar programmes (Japan notably) want the beam-WPT framework; many others see the item as premature. The double brackets are a survival question: this is the most likely of the 14 to be deleted or radically narrowed at WRC-27 AI 10. If it survives, expect it scoped to beam WPT only.

2.3 A-ESIM/M-ESIM with NGSO in 12.75–13.25 GHz Res 133 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

Aeronautical and maritime ESIMs communicating with non-GSO FSS space stations (Earth-to-space) in 12.75–13.25 GHz. First principles: WRC-23 (AI 1.15) enabled GSO ESIMs in this band; NGSO operators (Starlink aero/maritime, Kuiper-class) want the same Ku uplink for mobility terminals. The complication that makes this harder than it looks: 12.75–13.25 GHz is an Appendix 30B planned band — every country holds a national allotment there, and the App 30B community (strongly developing-country-flavoured) polices it as guaranteed patrimony. NGSO ESIM uplinks sweeping through the band raise both App 30B protection and equitable-access sensitivities; Res 133 mandates protection of App 30B assignments including future ones.

Camps and outlook

NGSO mobility operators and flag administrations versus the App 30B guardianship bloc plus GSO Ku incumbents. The WRC-23 GSO-ESIM precedent (Res 902 lineage plus the new framework) helps, but the NGSO version re-runs the epfd/App 30B protection analysis with moving terminals. Expect confirmation at AI 10 — the commercial demand is real — followed by a genuinely contested study cycle. Probable eventual landing: enabling framework with hard App 30B protection conditions, in the WRC-23 AI 1.15 pattern.

2.4 Inter-satellite service in C-band: NGSO–GSO relay links in 3 700–4 200 / 5 925–6 425 MHz Res 683 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

ISS allocations in 3 700–4 200 MHz and 5 925–6 425 MHz to enable links between NGSO and GSO satellites. First principles: this is the GSO-relay architecture (GSO data-relay constellations selling backhaul to LEO systems — the SES/Intelsat-class play, mirroring AI 1.11's L-band version but in wideband C-band). An NGSO below the GSO arc receiving 6 GHz "uplink-direction" energy from above, or transmitting 4 GHz "downlink-direction" energy upward, creates geometries the C-band coordination environment never contemplated. And C-band is the most politically protected FSS band on Earth — the developing-world workhorse — while its lower edges have been progressively surrendered to IMT.

Camps and outlook

GSO operators with relay ambitions and smallsat users versus C-band FSS incumbents fearing any new variable in their band, terrestrial 6 GHz interests (Wi-Fi/IMT spillover politics), and administrations that treat C-band stability as sacrosanct. Same-direction-only link design will be the enabling compromise, as in AI 1.11. Expect survival at AI 10 and a moderately contested cycle with a conditions-heavy outcome.

2.5 Aeronautical mobile service use of IMT bands — aircraft on mobile networks Res 251 (Rev.WRC-23)Battleground

What it is and why it's queued

Possible primary AMS allocation in [694–960 MHz] or parts (Region 1), 890–942 MHz or parts (Region 2) and [3 400–3 700 MHz] or parts (Region 3) for IMT user equipment on aircraft using terrestrial IMT networks — non-safety applications (drones/UAS command links and passenger-class connectivity via ground IMT). First principles: today's mobile allocations exclude aeronautical mobile in most IMT bands precisely because an airborne terminal has line-of-sight to hundreds of base stations simultaneously — the uplink interference footprint scales catastrophically with altitude. The item tests whether power control, altitude-dependent e.i.r.p. masks and network-based mitigation can tame that geometry. The square brackets on the Region 1 and 3 bands are frozen WRC-23 disagreement; the item carries an annotation for further consideration at WRC-27 given divergent views on the bands and incumbent-protection means.

Camps and outlook

Drone/UAS industry, some mobile operators (new revenue class) and aviation-connectivity players pushing; broadcasters (694–960 MHz Region 1 sits over GE06-adjacent sensitivities), incumbent IMT licensees fearing uplink pollution, and administrations protective of 3.5 GHz 5G capacity resisting. This item will absorb a real fight at WRC-27 AI 10 just to settle its band list — deletion of the bracketed bands is plausible, leaving a narrower Region 2-anchored item. Full-scope survival is unlikely.

2.6 IMT above 100 GHz — identifications in 102–275 GHz windows Res 255 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

Possible IMT identification of [102–109.5 GHz], [151.5–164 GHz], [167–174.8 GHz], [209–226 GHz] and [252–275 GHz] — the sub-THz 6G-and-beyond play. First principles: at these frequencies IMT means short-range, ultra-wideband hotspot and fronthaul use; the windows were drawn around (but adjacent to) the passive service bands protected by No. 5.340, and the passive community's WRC-19 experience (the 24 GHz/EESS unwanted-emission fight) makes it deeply suspicious of IMT arriving next door to water-vapour and oxygen sensing bands at 114.25–116, 164–167 and 200–209 GHz.

Camps and outlook

Mobile vendors and 6G research administrations (Korea, Japan, China, US, EU programmes) versus the meteorological/science coalition. All five bands are bracketed — expect the band list to be pruned at WRC-27 AI 10 (the pairs tightest against passive bands are most vulnerable) and, next cycle, a re-run of the WRC-19 Res 750-limits war one octave higher. The link to AI 1.18's outcomes is direct: limits set at WRC-27 become the template.

2.7 VHF maritime modernization Res 363 (Rev.WRC-23)Low heat

What it is and why it's queued

Improving utilization of VHF maritime radiocommunication (Appendix 18 channel plan). First principles: the maritime VHF band carries safety-critical voice (Ch 16), AIS, and increasingly the VHF Data Exchange System (VDES, incl. its satellite component) — but the Appendix 18 channelization still reflects analogue-era planning. Digitalization pressure (e-navigation, autonomous shipping data needs) keeps outgrowing the plan; each WRC nibbles at it (WRC-19 VDES-SAT, WRC-23 refinements) and this item continues the programme.

Camps and outlook

IMO-coordinated and consensual by construction — the fights are technical (channel repurposing vs legacy voice users, VDES-SAT protection geometry). Safe confirmation at AI 10; WP 5B study cycle; incremental Appendix 18 revision at WRC-31. Watch only for interaction with GMDSS modernization timelines.

2.8 MF/HF maritime — Article 52 and Appendix 17 revision Res 366 (WRC-23)Low heat

What it is and why it's queued

Improving utilization and channelization of maritime MF/HF, including potential revisions of Article 52 and Appendix 17. First principles: maritime HF remains the long-range safety and general-communications fallback (GMDSS sea areas A3/A4 beyond satellite coverage assumptions), but Appendix 17's channelling was built around radiotelex (NBDP) and analogue SSB. NAVDAT (digital broadcast to ships, Rec ITU-R M.2010-class systems) and modern data waveforms need coherent channel space; obsolete NBDP allotments are the obvious donor.

Camps and outlook

IMO-aligned and undramatic; the constituency battles are between administrations still operating legacy HF services and modernizers. Expect confirmation and a clean Appendix 17 restructuring cycle — the maritime pair (2.7/2.8) is the quiet, deliverable end of the WRC-31 agenda.

2.9 RNSS downlinks in 5 030–5 250 MHz — C-band GNSS Res 684 (WRC-23)Battleground

What it is and why it's queued

Possible new RNSS (space-to-Earth) allocations in [5 030–5 150 MHz] and [5 150–5 250 MHz] or parts. First principles: L-band GNSS (1 164–1 610 MHz) is congested, jamming-prone and interference-fragile; a C-band GNSS component offers wider bandwidth (better multipath/accuracy), different propagation and jamming diversity — attractive to next-generation constellation designs, including the LEO-PNT wave (Xona, CentiSpace-class systems and successor programmes) hunting spectrum outside L-band. The collision: 5 030–5 150 MHz is the AM(R)S/MLS aeronautical safety band (microwave landing system legacy, now UAS C2 link plans under AI-lineage from WRC-23), and 5 150–5 250 MHz hosts RLAN/Wi-Fi (5 GHz U-NII) plus AMS and FSS feeder uplinks (5 150–5 250 non-GSO MSS feeders). Aviation treats 5 030–5 150 as its reserved future.

Camps and outlook

GNSS-modernizing administrations and LEO-PNT proponents versus ICAO and the aviation-safety bloc (near-absolute on 5 030–5 150) plus the unlicensed-band ecosystem at 5 150–5 250. Both bands bracketed. Expect a bruising AI 10 discussion; survival probably requires dropping or conditioning one of the two sub-bands. Strategically significant for the whole LEO-PNT filing wave regardless of outcome — the item's existence already shapes WP 4C system-characteristic work.

2.10 EESS (Earth-to-space) at 22.55–23.15 GHz Res 664 (Rev.WRC-23)Low heat

What it is and why it's queued

Possible new primary EESS (Earth-to-space) allocation in 22.55–23.15 GHz — uplink capacity for Earth-observation satellite command/data systems, carried over from earlier cycles (Res 664 dates from WRC-19, revised at WRC-23 — a sign it keeps missing the cut). First principles: EESS uplink needs are modest but growing with commercial EO constellations; the band neighbours ISS allocations and the 22.21–22.5 GHz passive water-vapour line band, so the analysis is a familiar unwanted-emission exercise.

Camps and outlook

Space agencies and EO operators for; passive-band guardians conditioning. Genuinely low-drama — its repeated deferral reflects agenda triage, not opposition. Likely confirmed and likely delivered at WRC-31 with Res 750-consistent conditions.

2.11 EESS downlinks in Q/V-band — upgrade at 37.5–40.5 GHz or new allocations in 40.5–52.4 GHz Res 685 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

Either upgrading the secondary EESS (space-to-Earth) allocation in [37.5–40.5 GHz] to primary, or new worldwide primary EESS (s-E) allocations within [40.5–52.4 GHz]. First principles: EO downlink data volumes are exploding (SAR constellations, hyperspectral) and X-band (8 025–8 400 MHz, under IMT pressure via AI 1.7) plus 25.5–27 GHz are saturating; the logical next step is Q/V. But 37.5–52.4 GHz is exactly the FSS mega-constellation heartland that AIs 1.1/1.3/1.6 are busy filling — EESS wants primary status in a band the FSS industry considers its growth corridor.

Camps and outlook

Space agencies and EO industry versus FSS Q/V incumbents and their administrations — the same NGSO operators who fight for headroom everywhere else will resist a new primary claimant here. Expect the 37.5–40.5 GHz upgrade path (narrower, tidier) to survive AI 10 more easily than the sweeping 40.5–52.4 GHz option; the eventual outcome likely lands as an upgrade-with-conditions or targeted sub-band allocations.

2.12 EESS (active) secondary allocations at 3.0–3.1 / 3.3–3.4 GHz Res 686 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

Possible new secondary EESS (active) allocations in [3 000–3 100 MHz] and [3 300–3 400 MHz]. First principles: S-band spaceborne SAR penetrates vegetation and soil better than X-band and complements L-band (1 215–1 300 MHz) missions (NISAR-class); the candidate bands sit in radiolocation territory (military S-band radars) directly below the 3 400+ MHz 5G corridor. Secondary status is the offered price: the sensors would operate without protection and without constraining radars or (adjacent) IMT.

Camps and outlook

Space/science agencies for; radar-operating defence establishments cautious (even secondary spaceborne emitters illuminate large areas); IMT interests watching the 3 400 MHz boundary. Bracketed bands, but the secondary-only design is deliberately modest. Reasonable survival odds and a manageable study cycle — the WRC-23 precedent of the 45 MHz radar-sounder item shows the conference can digest exotic active-sensing asks when status is kept secondary.

2.13 Spaceborne SAR vs radars in 9 200–10 400 MHz — coexistence studies Res 722 (WRC-23)Contested

What it is and why it's queued

Coexistence studies between spaceborne SAR in EESS (active) and the radiodetermination service in 9 200–10 400 MHz, with possible actions. First principles: WRC-22-era extensions gave X-band SAR up to 1 200 MHz of imaging bandwidth around 9.6 GHz; since then the commercial SAR fleet (ICEYE, Capella, Umbra, Synspective and successors) has multiplied into constellations, and the band's other occupants — ground, shipborne and airborne radars, many military — report a changed interference environment. The item is unusual: not a new allocation, but a health-check on whether existing sharing conditions still work when one side scales by an order of magnitude.

Camps and outlook

Radar-operating administrations (demandeurs — they want the evidence base and possibly tightened conditions) versus the commercial SAR industry and its flag states (fearing retroactive constraints on a booming sector). The likely trajectory: studies confirm localized issues, and WRC-31 lands on operational/coordination refinements rather than allocation changes. Strategically, it is the first "aggregate-effect audit" of a commercial NewSpace sector written into a WRC agenda — a template others will copy.

2.14 470–694 MHz review — the UHF endgame Res 235 (Rev.WRC-23)Battleground

What it is and why it's queued

Review of spectrum use and needs of broadcasting and mobile in 470–694 MHz with possible regulatory action. First principles: sub-700 MHz UHF is the last great terrestrial coverage band — the home of DTT broadcasting (protected in Region 1 by the GE06 Plan), wireless microphones/PMSE, and in some countries the target of a "second digital dividend" for mobile. WRC-23 fought this to a draw: Region 1 gained a secondary mobile allocation (with conditions, effective per footnote arrangements) plus country-footnote primary entries for some administrations, with the full review deferred to WRC-31 under revised Res 235. Demand curves do the rest: DTT audiences decline in some markets and remain structural in others (much of Africa, parts of Europe), while mobile coverage economics keep coveting the band.

Camps and outlook

Mobile industry and coverage-hungry administrations versus broadcasters (EBU-coordinated in Europe), GE06 guardians, PMSE users and administrations whose broadcast transition is incomplete. Russia and several others have their own terrestrial equities. This is the terrestrial headline of WRC-31 the way AI 1.7 is of WRC-27 — expect a full-cycle war over whether Region 1 moves to co-primary mobile, with the GE06 Plan's future as the deepest stake. AI 10 at WRC-27 will confirm it (deletion is politically impossible) but expect skirmishes over the scope wording.

Also fighting for a seat at WRC-31 via AI 10: an Article 22 epfd-revision item (the NGSO camp's declared structural objective, armed with this cycle's study results and the FCC's unilateral modernization precedent); leftover AI 1.7 bands and any unfinished AI 1.13 D2D scope; space-sustainability regulatory concepts maturing out of Res ITU-R 74; and lunar/cislunar follow-on work from AI 1.15. The AI 10 negotiation in the final week of WRC-27 is, in effect, the opening session of WRC-31.

07The shadow agenda — not agenda items, but shaping everything

Article 22 epfd review — the GSO/NGSO structural war

First principles: Article 22 epfd limits (adopted ~2000 for Skybridge-era systems) cap the aggregate power flux NGSO constellations may lay across GSO earth stations and satellites, making GSO/NGSO coexistence automatic rather than negotiated. SpaceX, Amazon Leo and allies argue the limits are technologically obsolete and over-protective — modern beam-forming makes far denser NGSO service compatible; GSO operators (Viasat, SES, EchoStar side) argue relaxation would monetize interference into infrastructure carrying broadcast and government traffic. WRC-23 refused an agenda item but commissioned studies (explicitly without regulatory consequences) reporting to WRC-27; the FCC has meanwhile moved unilaterally on epfd modernization — applauded by LEO operators, alarming GSO ones — raising the stakes on whether the ITU framework keeps pace or fragments. Expect the study results to be fought over at WRC-27 mainly as ammunition for an AI 10 fight to put revision on the WRC-31 agenda. With ~80% of the WRC-27 agenda NGSO-touching, this is the cycle's centre of gravity even without its own item number.

Res ITU-R 74, sustainability & the host-nation factor

Res ITU-R 74 (RA-23) frames NGSO inter-system compatibility and efficient orbit/spectrum use as a standing study track — the soft-law layer beneath AIs 1.5, 1.6 and 1.16, and the vehicle through which "space sustainability" language creeps toward the RR. Separately, the venue matters: China as host gains customary agenda-management influence, and US industry has publicly flagged both the "home field advantage" and practical participation constraints (delegation security posture). Expect Chinese priorities — IMT identifications (AI 1.7), D2D frameworks aligned with its ecosystem, and its own constellation programmes' interests (Guowang, Qianfan need the same NGSO enablements as Starlink) — to be pursued with procedural skill. A structural irony of the cycle: on NGSO enablement items, US and Chinese constellation interests often point the same direction.

08Regional preparations — who decides, and how

Six regional telecommunication organizations pre-negotiate the conference. A proposal backed by two or more of them usually wins; understanding their internal mechanics is understanding the WRC. Held meetings plain; next milestone highlighted.

CEPT — ECC Conference Preparatory Group (CPG) Europe · 46 administrations · Chair: Stephen Talbot (UK/Ofcom)

CPG27 works through project teams: PTA (science & radiolocation — 1.8, 1.15–1.19), PTC (MSS block 1.11–1.14, AIs 2/4 and satellite-regulatory topics), PTD (FSS items 1.1–1.6, 1.10 area), with AI 1.7 deliberately handled in ECC PT1 ("IMT matters") where terrestrial expertise sits. Output ladder: CEPT Brief (background + preliminary position + actions) → European Common Proposal (ECP), adopted by CPG plenary; EU Member States additionally operate under RSPG Opinions and, where applicable, Council decisions — which is why CEPT positions on items with EU policy content (1.7, 1.13, 1.19) harden early and move slowly.

Status (mid-2026): all draft Briefs revised for CPG27-5 (Jūrmala); first draft ECPs exist on several science items (1.15, 1.18) and four PTA ECPs are in development; PTC produced ECP elements across the MSS block and sent three CEPT study contributions to WP 4C; D2D work coordinated with the EC Mandate via SE40. CEPT's early red lines: AI 1.5 (oppose coverage mandates), AI 1.2 (demonstrated protection of RLS/SRS), AI 1.1 (Res 123 pattern).

CPG27-1 · May 2024 · Copenhagen CPG27-2 · Dec 2024 · Prague CPG27-3 · Jun 2025 · Groningen CPG27-4 · Dec 2025 · Nuuk CPG27-5 · 30 Jun–3 Jul 2026 · Jūrmala CPG27-6 · Nov 2026 · Norway CPG27-7 · Mar 2027 CPG27-8 · Jun 2027 CPG27-9 · Aug–Sep 2027

APT — APG for WRC-27 Asia-Pacific · 38 members · Chair: Nobuyuki Kawai (Japan)

APG mirrors the CPM Report chapters with Working Parties and per-item Drafting Groups (DG chairs spread across China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Iran, Indonesia and others — the chair map is a useful read on national priorities). Ladder: Preliminary Views → PACPs → APT Common Proposals (ACPs), an ACP requiring support from ≥25% of members and opposition from <50% of supporters — a threshold that lets APT field common proposals even where China, Japan, Korea, India and Australia disagree, by simply not proposing on the contested point. Expect exactly that on AI 1.7 (internal split) and fuller ACPs on the satellite/science items. APG27-2 (Pattaya, ~700 participants) adopted the current Preliminary Views set; APG27-3 (Sapporo) is the working meeting that will shape PACPs.

APG27-1 · Jun 2024 · Shanghai APG27-2 · 28 Jul–1 Aug 2025 · Pattaya APG27-3 · 27–31 Jul 2026 · Sapporo APG27-4 · early 2027 APG27-5 · Jun–Jul 2027 · Rep. of Korea

CITEL — PCC.II Americas · OAS · WRC-prep WG chair: Ricardo Martínez (Colombia)

Ladder: Preliminary Proposal (one state) → Draft Inter-American Proposal (supported by others) → Inter-American Proposal (IAP) requiring ≥6 administrations and ≤50% opposition among endorsements. The US feeds PCC.II through a two-track machine — the FCC's WRC Advisory Committee (industry consensus; 4th meeting Feb 2026, recommendations including the AI 1.7 full-band position) reconciled with NTIA/IRAC federal views, transmitted via the State Department. Structural feature: where US federal (DoD/NOAA/NASA) and commercial interests split — 7/8 GHz, epfd, D2D — US positions arrive late and hedged, and CITEL IAPs form around what Canada, Brazil, Mexico and the US can jointly live with. PCC.II has opened WRC-27-relevant rapporteurships (17.3–17.7 GHz FSS; blanket licensing for FSS/ESIM earth stations) and runs WRC information sessions each meeting through 2026.

44th · Sep 2024 · Mérida 45th · Jun 2025 · Mexico City 46th · Sep–Oct 2025 · Salvador 47th · 6–10 Apr 2026 · Portsmouth, Dominica 48th · 30 Nov–4 Dec 2026 · Bogotá 49th · May 2027 · Brazil 50th · Aug–Sep 2027 · Ottawa

ASMG & ATU (African group)

ASMG (Arab group): 33rd meeting Sep 2025 (Abu Dhabi), 34th in 2026. ATU African Preparatory Meetings: APM27-1 (Maseru 2024), APM27-2 (Nairobi, Aug 2025), APM27-3 Sep 2026 (Tunisia). Strategic weight: these blocs supply the votes and moral framing on AI 1.6 (equitable access — their signature item), lean toward stronger measures on AI 1.5, and are courted by both the IMT and satellite camps on AI 1.7/1.13 — African positions often decide which multi-region coalition reaches critical mass.

RCC

Regional Commonwealth in the field of Communications (Russia-led; WG chaired by Sergey Pastukh), meeting roughly twice yearly through 2027. Reliable positions: hard incumbent protection in IMT candidate bands where its military/aeronautical systems operate, sovereignty-maximalist on AI 1.5, and tactically aligned with China on agenda-shaping. Sanctions-era isolation limits RCC's coalition reach but not its blocking capacity under consensus rules.

Cross-regional machinery: ITU Inter-Regional Information Sessions and workshops synchronize the blocs — IRIS-1 (Dec 2025, Geneva) surfaced first divergences; a second workshop is planned around the draft CPM Report (late 2026) and a third pre-conference (Q3/Q4 2027). Watch these for the earliest reliable signal of which items will be footnote-fragmented versus globally settled.