Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

114
THE HISTORY OF SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
complete internationalization of the Manager under a director general, felt that fixing a
rigid time period in which this goal must be realized might interfere with the necessity of
[e]nsuring efficient and effective management. Australia, Chile, Nigeria and Venezuela
favored this approach. Some members of the Working Group who supported this view
wanted it made clear that staff should be recruited on the basis of competence rather than
on the basis of investment or geographical representation of countries.
A third view, expressed by the United States, specifically rejected the view that internationalization
of the Manager should, in itself, be a primary goal or common aim.
Efficient management should be the only goal of the organization regarding the structure
of its management body. Internationalization of the organization should be addressed in
the assembly and the governing body. Subsequently, the U.S. Delegation indicated that we
could consider dividing the management function and creating an international administrative
[10] management body to handle administrative, financial, and legal functions,
with the operational manager continuing to handle other functions. The United States
made it clear, however, that the concept of a director general interpositioned between the
manager and the governing body was unacceptable.
Working Group C—The report of Working Group C (Com. I/94) deals with eligibility
for INTELSAT membership and the question of relationships with non-member countries.
The Working Group produced two draft articles, one on membership, which
stipulates that only International Telecommunication[s] Union members are eligible for
INTELSAT membership; and one setting forth principles of access to the system, which
would make direct access to the space segment of the global system available to all signatories
and other states, countries or areas not members of the organization. The Group
unanimously supported the draft articles, with Tunisia, however, recording the view that
the possibility of admitting non-ITU members to membership in INTELSAT should not
be excluded. A few other members and several observers also spoke in favor of this view
in meetings of the parent Committee, though a considerably larger number of members
spoke in favor of ITU membership as a condition.
Committee I discussed the topics considered by its Working Groups before and after
the Groups met. In addition, the topics of the rights and obligations of members and
INTELSAT relationship with the ITU were discussed in the Committee, but these discussions
did not go beyond a few expressions of views and these topics were not assigned to
a Working Group. The Secretariat prepared and distributed a summary of the main points
touched upon in these discussions (Com. I/107, Rev. 1).
Committee II—Legal and Procedural Questions
Committee II established three Working Groups. Its agenda is set forth in Annex D.
[11] Working Group on Legal Status—Legal status was examined at some length in both
the Working Group and the full Committee. All of the other members of the Working
Group (Brazil, Chile, Germany, the Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.)
opposed the U.S. position that INTELSAT should continue as a joint venture without legal
personality. Instead they favored establishing INTELSAT as a legal entity distinct from the
participants. The joint venture was described by the U.S. as a viable means of carrying out
the activities and purposes of INTELSAT. The majority view urges that INTELSAT will be
better able to contract, own property, sue or be sued, obtain privileges and immunities,
and incur and dispose of liabilities appropriately if it is a separate legal personality. The
United States position is that all these functions have been performed and can continue
to be performed through a joint venture.
The report of the Working Group contains separate statements of the majority and