pcs-03-12rev-e

PREPARATORYCOMMISSIONFORTHEESTABLISHMENTOFTHEINTERNATIONALREGISTRYFORSPACEASSETSPURSUANTTOTHESPACEPROTOCOLThirdsessionRome,11-12September2014UNIDROIT2014Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.Original:EnglishOctober2014SUMMARYREPORTOFTHETHIRDSESSION(Rome,11-12September2014)2.UNIDROIT2014–Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.1.TheThirdsessionofthePreparatoryCommissionfortheestablishmentoftheInternationalRegistryforSpaceAssetspursuanttotheSpaceProtocoltookplaceattheheadquartersofUNIDROITinRomeon11and12ofSeptember2014(fortheListofParticipantsseeAnnexItothisreport).ItemNo1onthedraftagenda–Openingofthesessionandwelcome2.ParticipantsmetattheheadquartersofUNIDROITfortheopeningofthesessionbytheUNIDROITSecretary-General.3.ActingasprovisionalChairmantheSecretary-GeneralwelcomedthedelegationsandtheobserversandthankedthemforhavingpositivelyrespondedtotheinvitationtoparticipateintheworkofthethirdsessionofthePreparatoryCommission.HeinformedtheCommissionthattheobserverrepresentingSEShadannouncedviaemailthatshewasunexpectedlyunabletoattendbutwouldbereadytoprovideinformationintheeventthattherewereanyquestionsduringthemeetingrelatedtothesatelliteoperators.ItemNo2Adoptionoftheagendaandorganisationofthebusinessofthesession(Prep.Comm.Space/2/Doc.1rev.)4.ProfSergioMarchisio(Italy)wasreappointedChairmanofthesession.5.Theagendasentoutwiththeinvitationwasadopted(seeAnnexIItothepresentreport).ItemNo.3ontheagenda–ConsiderationoftheExplanatoryNotetothereviseddraftSpaceRegulationspreparedbyProfRoyGoode(Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.2andDoc.3)6.TheChairmanopenedthediscussiononItemNo.3oftheagenda,drawingthedelegates’attentiontoDocumentNo.2,theExplanatoryNoteonDraftSpaceRegistryRegulationsasrevisedAugust2014.TheChairmaninvitedSirRoyGoodetointroducetheabove-mentioneddocument.7.SirRoyGoodefirstexpressedhisthankstothemembersofthePreparatoryCommissionthathadcommentedonthereviseddraftssentforconsultation(atableofcommentsorganisedaccordingtosectionofthedraftRegulationshadbeenpreparedbytheUNIDROITSecretariatasDocumentNo.5).HefurtherexpressedhisgratitudetoMr.Cowan,formakinghisextensiveexperienceavailable.TherevisedversionofAugusttookallofthisinputintoaccount,aswellasadditionalinsightsbySESrepresentativeswhomhemetinLuxembourg,butfurthercommentshadsincebeenreceivedbymemberStatesandanobserver(reproducedinDocumentsNo.6,8,9and10).8.SirRoyGoodefurtherdrewthedelegates’attentiontoanotherdocumentthathadbeenpreparedbytheSecretariatofUNIDROIT,acomparisonbetweentheJuneandAugustdrafttextsagainstthedrafttextofDecember2013(DocumentNo.4).9.SirRoyGoodethenproceededtosummarisethepointsthathebelievedhadbeenagreed.Firstly,registrationwastobeconfinedtospacecraft,payloadorpartsofpayload,asprovidedfornowinSection3.1bisofthedraftRegulations.Hesupportedthereformulationsuggestionmadebyonedelegationtoexpresswhatwasnowinthenegative(whatcouldnotberegistered)intothepositive(whatcouldberegistered),withaslightamendment.10.Secondly,ithadbeenagreedthat,incaseofapre-launchregistration,themanufacturer’snameandcontractreferencenumbershouldnormallysuffice,whereasitremainedforfinalconsiderationwhetherornotthemanufacturer’sserialnumberandmodeldesignationshouldbeaddedtoaregistrationofapayloadorpartofpayload.Oneobserverhadsuggestedthatitmaybenecessarytoretaintheabilityoftheregistrartoallocateauniqueserialnumberincaseacontractnotonlycoveredthepartbutalsotheancillaryservices.UNIDROIT2014–Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.3.11.AthirdpointonwhichSirRoyGoodebelievedthatconsensushadbeenreachedwasthattherewastobenocompulsoryregistrationpost-launchofaninterestthathadalreadybeenregisteredpre-launch.12.SirRoyGoodethensummarisedthepointsthatwereunlikelytobecontroversial.ThefirstpointraisedwastheproposalbyMr.CowantoexpandthedefinitionofregisteredinformationunderSection2.1.13,soastoenableacreditor’snoticeunderArticleXXVII(4)oftheProtocolontheexerciseofremedieswhereapublicinterestrestrictionappliessoastoallowthemtoshowonaprioritysearch.13.AsecondpointwhichwasunlikelytobecontroversialwastheinsertionofadefinitionofStateofregistryunderSection2.1.17,similarlytotheAircraftprotocol.14.Thirdly,theabandonmentoftherequirementtostatethegeneralnatureofapayloadorpartofapayloadalsoappearedtobeclosetoaconsensusinfavour,thoughperhapsnotofunanimity.15.Fourthly,onedelegationhadmadeaproposaltoreformulateSection4.1bis,whichonlyrequiredaslightmodification.16.SirRoyGoodethenproceededinhissummarisationofpointsthatremainedtobediscussed.Thefirstpointthatremainedtobesettledwaswhetherthemanufacturer’sserialnumberandmodeldesignationshouldbeaddedtotheidentificationcriteria.Oneobserverfromtheindustryhadexpressedtheopinionthatasfarastheentirespacecraftisconcernedtheysawnomeritinaserialnumber,andthattherewasnotanyparticularuseforamodeldesignation.However,giventhattherewerestillPreparatoryCommissionmembersinfavourofthatapproach,thisremainedtobediscussed.17.Secondly,therehadbeensuggestionsinfavourofadditionalrequirementstotheinformationrequirementsunderSection5.SirRoyGoodesuggestedthatMr.Cowancouldofferahelpfulviewinthisregardonthepracticaloperationoftheregistry.18.Athirdissuetobesettledwaswhetherornot,inSection3.1ter,whichdealswithpayloadorpartofapayload,thereshouldbearequirementthattheyshouldbeseparatelyfinanced.Onedelegationhadexpressedapreferencefor“separatelyfinanced”tobedropped,whereasanotherhadsuggesteddeleting“separately”butleaving“financed”.19.AfourthissuetobeconsideredwasaproposaltohaveuniqueidentificationforpartsofpayloadthatwerenotinspacebutonEarth.SirRoyGoodepointedoutthatthatissuehadbeenaddressedpartlyinSections5.3bisand5.3terofthedraftRegulations.20.Thefifthpointsubjecttodiscussionwastheprovisionforregistrationofdetailsofphysicallylinkedassets.TheunderlyingsuggestionwastoenableacreditortakinganinterestinassetAto,viaasearch,learniftherewasanotherinterestaheadofhiminalinkedassetB,andthereforewhetherornothewouldbenefitfromtherestrictionunderArticleXVII(3)oftheSpaceProtocol.21.ThesixthandfinalpointthatSirRoyGoodestatedwassubjecttodiscussionwastheproblemofregistrationofnewdatawhereapayloadorpartofapayloadwastransferredtoanotherspacecraft.Onedelegationproposedtoprovideforcontinuousupdatingwherepayloadwastransferredtoanotherspaceasset,whichsolutionwouldneedtobeconsidered.22.TheChairmanthankedSirRoyGoodeandopenedthefloorfordiscussion.23.Onedelegationaddedregistrationoftranspondersasafurthertopictobediscussed.SirRoyGoodeacknowledgedthat,astechnologyprogressed,certaincategories,suchastransponders,werebecominglessandlessphysical,e.g.somecommunicationchannelsdidnotevenrequireatransponder.TherationalefollowedinthelastsessionofthePreparatoryCommissionwastousebankabilityasacriterion,thoughnotexpresslymentioningthiscriterion.Oneneededtodefinewhatkindsofpartsofpayloadswouldattractinternationalinterests,andprovideidentificationcriteriaforeachofthem.Inresponse,onedelegationarguedthattheywereawareofinstancesofjointfinancing4.UNIDROIT2014–Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.oftransponders,giventhatmanyindustryplayersweresmalltomediumbusinessesthatwerenotcapableoffinancingthewholesatelliteontheirown,butthatthistopicshouldbediscussedwhenaddressingthethepointconcerningtheuseoftheterm“separatelyfinanced”orsimply“financed”.24.TheChairmaninvitedtheCommissiontoproceedmoresystematicallywiththediscussion,usingthecomparativetablepreparedbytheSecretariatofUNIDROIT,soastoassessagreementwiththerevisedtext.25.HereferredthedelegatestoDocumentNo.3andinparticularSection2.1.13“Registeredinformation”.Thedelegationsparticipatinginthediscussionexpressednoobjectionagainsttheproposedchanges.26.TheChairmanthendrewthedelegates’attentiontoSection3.1–bis.Onedelegationsuggestedfortheprovisiontoberevisedinthelightofpracticalconsiderations,namelythefactthatitdidnotaccountforexistingassetsthatfelloutofthedefinition“payloadorpartofpayload”,suchasspacecraftasawholeorpartofspacecraft.UponSirRoyGoode’sclarificationthatithadalwaysbeenpossibletoregisterinterestsagainstspacecraftasawhole,itwassuggestedthattherewereinstancessuchasspacemodulesthatwerebothindependentspaceassetsandpartsofaspacecraft.Thispointwasmetwiththeresponsethattherealquestionwouldbethedefinitionof“separatelyfinanced”assets.Theseconsiderationsfoundgeneralconsensus.Havingidentifiedthispointofagreement,theChairmanacknowledgedthechangeoftextwiththeadditionof“spacecraftandpartofspacecraft”.27.TheChairmanmovedtoconsideringSection3.1ter,acknowledgingonedelegation’ssupportforthenewformulationaswellasanumberofcommentsbyothermembersandobservers.Onedelegationintervenedwithaproposaltodefinecategoriesofpartsthatcouldbeseparatelyfinancedand,atlaterstages,addpossibleadditionalcategories,providedtheymetthatcriteriaaccordingtofeedbackfromthemarket.Thissuggestionmetwithapproval,subjecttotheneedtohaveacleartexttoavoidproblemswithinterpretationinthefuture.Itwasfurtherobservedthattheregulationscouldbemodifiedastheindustryandtheregistryitselfevolved,ashadhappenedwiththeAircraftRegistry.ThiswasconfirmedbyMr.CowanwhosuggestedthataslightlydifferentapprovalmechanismthantheonegenerallyemployedfortheRegulationsasawholecouldapplytotheadditionofcategories:anychangestocategoriescouldbesubmittedtoagroupofexperts,whowouldadviseastomarketpractice.TherepresentativeofITUsuggestedtoincludespecificlanguagerelatingtothefutureupdateoftheRegulationsonthispointinSection3.1ter,addingonly“spacecraftandpartsofspacecraft”inSection3.1bis.ThisleadtotheissueofwhetherSection3.1.tershouldbekeptinitspresentformulation,keptwithmodificationsordeleted(withtheprovisionregardingthefutureupdateofregistrablecategoriestobeputelsewhere).Afterathoroughexchangeofviewsaprovisionalconsensuswasreachedthatalistcontainingeachregistrablecategoryknownatpresentshouldbedrawn,addingtoeachitsspecificidentificationcriteria-theselattersubjecttofurtherresearch–whilstthegeneralcriterianowcontainedinSection3.1.shouldberetainedasguidanceforthedevelopmentofthelistandinclusionoffutureregistrablecategories.28.TheChairmanproceededtodrawtheCommission’sattentiontoSections5.3bisand5.3ter,referringtothecommentssubmittedbyseveralmembersoftheCommissionconcerninginformationrequiredtoeffectregistration.Thesuggestionpreviouslymadebyonedelegationtoincludespacecraftthatwaspartofspacecraftwasmetwithfavour.ConcerningthenewtextofSection5.3bis,a)andb),oneobserverpointedoutthatpreviouscontactswiththeindustryhadrevealedthatcontractreferencenumbersdidnotalwaysexclusivelyrefertoapart,butalsosometimesincludedancillaryservices,thereforesuggestingthattheregistrarshouldbeabletoallocateauniquenumberinsuchcases.Onedelegationobjectedtotherebeingnoreferencetothegenericnameoftheasset,acriterionthathadbeendeleted.Adiscussionensuedontheidentificationcriteriatobeassignedtoeachcategory,withonedelegationdrawingtheaudience’sattentiontothelastpartofitsproposal,whichprovidedamodelfortheinformationrequiredforregistration.UNIDROIT2014–Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.5.29.ThesessionresumedwiththeChairman’sconsiderationthatSection5.3wasstrictlylinkedtoSection3.1.Headvisedtheaudiencethat,afterconclusionoftheplenary,aninformalmeetingofagroupofallinteresteddelegationstogetherwiththeChairman,SirRoyGoodeandtheDeputySecretary-GeneralofUNIDROITwouldmeettodiscusstheseissuestoprovideadirectionfortherestofthesession.Abriefdiscussionwashoweverheldregardingthesuggestiontoretainthemanufacturer’smodeldesignationasadditionalcriterionfortheidentificationofspaceassets.Inthelightofthefavourablepositionoftwodelegationsatleastasregardedpartsofspacecraft,itwasagreedthatthisissuewouldbeconsideredattheinformalgroup’smeetingscheduledforthelateafternoon.30.Thediscussionmovedtothemodelformatfortheregistryproposedbyonedelegation.Mr.Cowanexpressedconcernthat,basedontheextensiveexperiencewiththeAircraftregistry,suchamodelwouldnotonlybeunnecessarybutalsoincompatiblewiththearchitectureofthewebsite.Theproposingdelegationspecifiedthatthemodelintendedtoensurethattheoutputoftheregistry(i.e.thesearchcriteriaunderSection7)mirroredtheinput(i.e.theregistrationcriteriaunderSection5).Mr.CowanexplainedthatSection7actuallyprovidedadescriptionofsearchcriteriabasedonthenotice-basedsystemrationale.Healsoaddedthat,fortheAircraftregistry,notallregisteredinformationwasshowninsearchresults.Therewereessentiallytwotypesofsearch:onebeinginformationalforwhichtheRegistrarhadnoliability,andtheotheraprioritysearch,eachreturningdifferenttypesofinformation.HealsoexplainedthatphysicallylinkedassetswerenotaddressedintheAircraftProtocolasitwasnotlegallynecessary,whereasthesituationwouldbedifferentfortheSpaceProtocol.31.Addressingthespecificpointofphysicallylinkedassets,thediscussioncontinuedwithonedelegationnotingthatregistrationwithrespecttoapayloadorpartofapayloadimpliedalsotheidentificationofthespacecraftinthecurrentversionofSection5.3ter.Thiswouldmeanthatasearchregardingapartwouldreturntheinformationonthespacecraftasalinkedasset.Howevertheissuetobearinmindwasthattheregistrycouldnotaccountforwhateverwasattachedatanygivenmoment,iftheinformationhadnotbeeninsertedintheregistry.Aprovisionalagreementwasreachedamongseveraldelegationstoprovideforlanguagetobeinsertedintheregistryconcerninglinkedassets,totheeffectthatthereportedinformationthatwasaccurateatthetimeofentryhowevermaynolongerbeaccurate.TheseconsiderationswerefollowedbyaremarkfromonedelegationsayingthatSection7wouldhavetobediscussedintheafternoonsplintermeetingsuggestedearlier.32.TheChairmanthusadjournedthesession.33.Thesessionre-openedat9:30ofthefollowingmorningwithanillustrationoftheresultsofthesplintermeetingthathadtakenplaceduringtheafternoonandeveningofthepreviousday,deliveredbySirRoyGoode,themainpointofwhichwasthatthetextcouldbegreatlysimplified.34.ThefirstsuggestedchangewasintroducedinSection2.1.17–StateofRegistry–nowmodifiedtorefertotherelevantsectionsthatpertainedtothedefinition.35.ThesecondsuggestedchangepertainedtoSection3.1bis,where,followingonthedecisionoftheCommission,thewordinghadbeenchangedtoincludeonly“spacecraft”followedby“anyotherassetincludedinAnnex1”(forthetimebeingthisonlyincludedtransponders).36.AthirdsuggestedchangeconcernedSection5.3c),whichhadbeensimplifiedintoonesectiondealingwithidentificationinformation.Again,theproceduredifferedbetweenspacecraftandanyotherspaceasset:inthefirstcasetheidentificationcriterionwasthemanufacturer’scontractnumber,inallothercasestheidentificationcriteriaweretobedeterminedaccordingtotheAnnex.37.AccordingtosuggestedSection7.1searchesweretobeperformedagainstmanufacturers’modelorcontractnumberforspacecraft,andagainstthecriterialistedinAnnex1forallotherspaceassets.6.UNIDROIT2014–Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.38.Finally,theAnnex,subjecttofurtherreviewuponconsultationwiththeindustry,provideddetailsfortheonlyotherspaceassetidentifiedthusfar,i.e.transponders,aswellascriteriafortheinclusionofotherassets.39.TheChairmanthankedSirRoyGoodeforthereportoftheresultsandaskedtheCommissionforcommentsonthenewdraft.40.ThenewversionofSection2.15wasapprovedbytheCommission.41.RegardingnewSection3.1bis,oneobserverexpressedconcernthatthescopeofregistrationwouldbereducedtowhateverthemoreestablishedindustrywoulddecide,andwonderedifthiswasinlinewiththeunderlyingpurposeoftheProtocol.Anotherdelegateconsideredthat,althoughthenewversionpresentedwasveryclear,theonepointthatwasmissingwasthelistofgeneralcriteriathatwerepresentintheoriginalversion.ThedelegatethereforeproposedtointroducethecriteriaeitherinSection3.1terorinAnnex1soastoprovideguidancetothefutureexpertcommitteewhowouldberesponsiblefortheexpansionofthelist.Thissuggestionmetwithapproval,subjecttoadecisiononwheresuchgeneralcriteriashouldbeplaced(i.e.retainingtheminSection3.1ter,includingtheminAnnex1ordraftingaprovisiondealingspecificallywithfuturechanges).42.SirRoyGoodeexplainedtheimportanceofsubmittingthedraftAnnex1totheindustry,beingthisahighlytechnicalarea.Hesuggestedtoadd(withorwithoutsquarebrackets)thecategoriesthathadbeenreferredtoduringthepreviouscomments,aswellasthere-instatedcriteriaassuggested,sothattheoutsideexpertswouldbeabletoexpresstheirviews.Concerningthecommentregardingspacecraftaspartofanotherspacecraft,itwassuggestedtoplaceexamplesofsuchassetsinbrackets,sothattheindustryexpertswouldknowthattheywereincluded.TheChairman,inlightofthegeneralagreement,suggestedtoleavethetextunderSection3.1bisasitwas,andworkontheAnnexatalaterstageofthedeliberations.Anotherpointtodiscusswaswhetherandwheretoinserttherevisionprocedureaswellasthegeneralcriteriaforsuchrevision.SirRoyGoodementionedthatitwasonlytheSupervisoryAuthoritywhocouldchangetheRegulations,sothatitwouldbeuptothemtoprovideforasimplifiedproceduretoaddelementstothelist.AnumberofparticipantssupportedhowevertheproposaltoinsertguidelinesforfuturecategoriesinthetextoftheAnnex.TheChairmanstatedthatafterthisdiscussionSection3.1biscouldbedeemedagreed.43.TheChairmanproceededtoconsiderSection5c),concerningidentificationinformation,askingforanycommentstothenewlanguage.Onedelegationintervenedtocommentthatwhenonecontractcoveredseveralspaceassets,suchasaconstellationofsatellites,thereferencetotheserialnumberofthemanufacturerandthemodeldesignationcouldbeimportanttounivocallyidentifythespaceasset.SirRoyGoodeaddressedthispointsuggestingthatasecuredcreditor,havingsearchedtheRegistry,wouldthenuseordinarybusinessmechanismstoobtainparticularinformationonthesingleassetscoveredbythecontract.Anotherdelegationbelievedthatacontractidentificationnumberwouldbesufficienttoquerythedatabaseinmostcases,andthatthereshouldbecautioninmakingthemodeldesignationmandatorytoaddresssuchaparticularcaseasaconstellationofsatellites.Howeverthiswasmetwiththecommentthatcontractsthatcoverseveralspaceassetswerebecomingmoreandmorefrequent,andthatthenameandnumberassignedbythemanufacturershouldbeaddedinbracketsascriteria.Apracticalsolutionforanychangesthatcouldaffectthenameinfuturewouldbethatanychangesbecommunicatedtotheregistry.Mr.Cowanstatedthatinsertingthemodeldesignationasacriterionifavailablewouldseemlikeagoodsolutionfortheparticularcaseofcontractscoveringseveralassetsbutthisshouldbesubjecttoobtainingindustry’sviewontheissue.44.AnotherargumentthatemergedduringthediscussionregardedtheuniquenumberassignationimplementedintheRailProtocol.AsthedelegaterepresentingSITAexplainedtheuniqueserialnumbermechanismassignedbytheregistrarprovidedsomeformofguaranteeofidentificationofanassetinanindustrysuchastheoneforRailwayRollingStock,giventhattherewasnouniquenessofaserialnumber.AnotherdelegationsuggestedthatthegeneralnatureofthespaceUNIDROIT2014–Prep.Comm.Space/3/Doc.12rev.7.asset(satellite,transponder,etc.)shouldbementioned.AccordingtoMr.Cowantheindicationofthetypeofsatelliteortransponderwouldnotbenecessary.45.Whendeliberationsresumedafterthebreak,theChairmansummarizedtheoptionsthathademergedduringinformaldiscussions.OnewastoaddlanguagetoSection5.3c)insquarebracketstoincludeadditionalcriteria,anotherwastogothroughaquickconsultationprocesswithrelevantpartiessendingoutaquestionregardingwhetherathirdidentificationcriterionwouldbeneedednotonlyforcasesofmultiplespaceassetsunderonecontractbutalsoforothercases.TheChairmanalsorecalledthatthiswouldnotbetheonlypointsubjecttoindustryconsultation;therewouldalsobetheAnnex.46.OnedelegationexpressedconcernonwhetherornottheissueofphysicallylinkedassetshadbeenaddressedasawholeinthenewdraftoftheRegulations,notonlyintheAnnexunderaparticularcategory.SirRoyGoodeagreedthatsuchaformulationshouldbeextendedtoallcategoriestobeaddedatalaterdate,atwhichpointadelegatesuggestedthatthisalsobeaddedasageneralguidelineforfutureadditions.47.SirRoyGoodebroughtforwardawordingsuggestedbyonedelegationprovidingfortwoquestions:oneregardingtheneedtoregisternames(genericmodeldesignation)assignedtospacecraft,andoneregardingthefrequencyofonecontractcoveringmorethanonespacecraftonthemarket.SirRoyGoodeopenedtheproposaltodiscussionandtoanyadditionalquestionsofthefloor.Thedelegationthatprovidedthewordingaddedthatthequestionsshouldbeclarifiedprovidingcontextofthetypeofregistryandthenotice-basedsyste