Answer: should information on telescope scheduling be provided for compatibility studies?

As soon as an allocation is given to a radiocommunication service for a particular frequency band, it has been adequately publicly demonstrated that this radiocommunication service needs this frequency band. Without such a demonstration no allocation is given. After this allocation has been given, the ITU Constitution, neither the ITU Convention nor the ITU Radio Regulations support the view that a radiocommunication service can enjoy protection only when additional details on need for its operations are demonstrated.

The ITU Radio Regulations and regional and national frequency plans as allocation plans do not deal with the characteristics of the factual operational status of an application in a radiocommunication service; this is part of the responsibility and sovereignty of the individual radiocommunication service. Nevertheless, specific coordination scenarios could include planning to specific applications when this is practiable.
Secondly, if providing scheduling is accepted that a radiocommunication service may consider protecting another service only when that latter has additionally demonstrated its needs to this first service, other questions arise which are related to the criteria for this demonstration, for this need, and why the other service asking for proof of this need has the mandate to demand this.
Thirdly, if this kind of demonstration of need is accepted, the difference in allocation status between radiocommunication services becomes arbitrary and relies on pressure brought by private (usually commercial) entities. If such a practice is accepted the status of the regulations is significantly weakened.