[LEAPSECS] countdown to WRC-15, CEPT ECC CPG

Rob Seaman seaman at noao.edu
Mon Oct 5 09:25:25 EDT 2015

And the report of the  International Astronomical Union’s UTC Working Group describes a similar lack of consensus to what Steve describes:


Sometimes a lack of consensus implies a lack of interest. This is not such a case. Rather, informed persons have strongly disjoint positions. In such a case a framework is needed to address the concerns of all parties. For instance, the chairs’ summary of “The Colloquium on Decoupling Civil Timekeeping from Earth Rotation” discusses diverse issues and options that need to be accommodated whatever decision is taken:


Outside the two meetings organized through the American Astronautical Society (http://futureofutc.org), there have been few discussions of the engineering and societal implications of redefining Coordinated Universal Time. A lack of consensus regarding the underlying engineering issues cannot persist, whether UTC is redefined at WRC-15 or not.

A good first step would be for ITU to rather define a brand-new timescale under a different name, leaving UTC for backwards compatibility. This would certainly require a level of effort to explicitly address new engineering concerns – but that effort is required under any scenario. Consensus must be found if rock-solid timekeeping infrastructure is to be built and operated.

Consensus already exists that ITU can do whatever it wants by defining a new timescale under a new name.

Rob Seaman
Network Time Foundation

> On Oct 3, 2015, at 11:45 PM, Steve Allen <sla at ucolick.org> wrote:
> WRC-15 is just a month hence.  The deadline for submission of proposals
> is October 19, and so far the contributions do not show anything related
> to Agenda Item 1.14.
> The final meeting of the European Conference of Postal and
> Telecommunications Authorities (CEPT) Electronic Communications
> Committee (ECC) Conference Preparatory Group (CPG) happened in
> September.  They found no consensus on Agenda Item 1.14 so they have
> no European Common Proposal (ECP) document for that.
> Instead they do have a brief which explains why there is no common
> position.  That brief is
> CPG15(15)084 Annex IV-15 - CEPT Brief on 1.14.docx
> which can be found inside this zip file
> http://www.cept.org/Documents/cpg/27331/CPG15(15)084-Annex-IV_CEPT-Briefs-from-AI-11-to-AI-10
> That brief gives a table of advantages and disadvantages followed by
> the known positions of many agencies around the world.  Many of the
> agencies have no position, and others disagree, so no consensus
> is evident.

More information about the LEAPSECS mailing list