Mid-term evaluation process on the USF Strategy, targets, and its pilot projects  According to global studies conducted by ITU and GSMA on USF, not all USFs have been successful in distributing funds and fulfilling the purposes of the Fund, for various reasons. One lesson learned from existing USFs is that due to rapid changes in technology in the ICT sector, an early and regular review process is required to allow Strategy to be modified to meet emerging needs and opportunities. The intention of ongoing monitoring of projects (Section 6.2) is therefore welcome. Furthermore, a mid-term review of the five year Strategy is therefore advisable, particularly as this is Myanmar’s first such Strategy, including a review of the whether the definition and concept of the “Universal Access” and “basic communication services” is necessary. Review of the 2% levy  Currently, it is planned that 2% of the revenue will be collected from the licensed operators for the Fund. Some or all of this levy will be passed to consumers in the form of increased cost of services and therefore reducing Affordability which is one of the goal of the USF.  Based on experience in other countries, MCRB is concerned that if the levy accumulates without being effectively spent, this will represent a pointless charge on customers, and also risks political pressure to spend the funds being spent for purposes other than universal service. MCRB therefore suggests the 2% levy should be reviewed after three years of collection to determine whether it is appropriate, or whether it is impacting Affordability for consumers.  In particular, it should be noted that the contractual requirement for geographic and/or population coverage for operators, which is higher than in many other countries, has already ensured that the market has achieved over 90% population coverage without a requirement for a USF. Transparency  MCRB welcomes the intention to publish, ��as a minimum, annual reports that provide details of funds collected, funds disbursed, to which operator or service provider projects are awarded, how much funds they have received, key terms and conditions of their service agreement, status and achievements of project implementation and service provision, successes and problems encountered’.  MCRB believes that this annual report should be an explicit requirement included in any Law, Notification or Regulation establishing the Fund, and that the Annual Report should be widely available, including on the internet, and deposited with Parliament. MCRB, 12 February 2018 www.mcrb.org.mm