Exploring the Unknown - NASA's History Office

EXPLORING THE UNKNOWN 117
agreed that shares should be adjusted periodically, but left open whether adjustments
would be based on past (U.S.) or projected use or some combination of the two. There
was also a division of views on the question of circumstances under which a signatory
could decline to accept an increased or decreased share.
It was agreed by all but a few members that there should be a utilization charge, partly
as a means of compensating owners whose share is larger than their use prior to adjustment
of shares. Working Group 1, which handled most of the Committee’s work,
recommended the cost of money plus about 2% as the basis of compensation for use of
capital in determining utilization charges.
Committee III’s second Working Group considered financial provisions relating to
transition from the present agreements and possible withdrawals from [16] the organization.
While the Working Group did not, and did not attempt to, reach final agreement,
there was general agreement on the principles that should be applicable. It should not be
too difficult to reach agreement in this area.
Working Group 3 agreed, with respect to financial access to the system by non-members,
that the organization, in establishing space segment utilization charges for nonmembers[,]
should take account of the fact that non-members have not borne any of the
risks and obligations of membership. This would mean that a rate charged to non-members
should take account of both the cost of the members’ capital and the risk they have
taken in investing in the system.
Committee IV—Other Operational Arrangements
Committee IV, which had two Working Groups, considered only procurement policy
(Working Group A) and patent and data policy (Working Group B).
On procurement policies there developed three alternative approaches: (1) a relatively
simple provision calling for international tenders and contractor selection on the
basis of the best combination of price, quality and timely delivery; (2) retention of the
existing interim arrangement provisions, which have allowed international spreading of
contracts; and (3) the amplification of (1) above by addition of specific language encouraging
international spreading of contracts with distribution roughly proportionate to relative
investment percentages of members. There is, in fact, little actual difference in the
probable practical effect of alternatives (2) and (3). The United States, and apparently a
majority of those countries expressing themselves on this issue, favored alternative (1).
The United Kingdom and Japan supported alternative (2) and France supported alternative
(3). The proposed specific wording is set forth in the Committee’s report (Doc. 12).
[17] With regard to patent and data policy, two alternatives emerged. The United States,
the United Kingdom and others favored a provision which would leave to the discretion
of the Governing Body the particular patent policies to be applied in each contract negotiation.
Canada, Germany, India, France and others proposed a patent provision which
would establish in the definitive arrangements a fixed non-exclusive license policy pursuant
to which any INTELSAT contractor would get title to inventions and data developed
under INTELSAT contracts, and the organization would take a non-exclusive license to
use the information only in connection with space segments and would thus forego control
over the contractor’s use of the information. There was virtually unanimous agreement
that to the extent INTELSAT obtains rights in inventions and data, they should be
made available on a royalty-free basis for use in the INTELSAT space segment and on a
reasonable royalty basis for other uses. The alternative patent and data policies are set
forth in Com. IV/10 and 11.
The Credentials Committee
The Credentials Committee was nominated by the Conference Chairman and