Not going to sit here and argue, but I will say that it would have been hard for the ITU-R to not allow the use of the term 4G for the "forerunner" technologies to the 4G Specified by them considering all the Cellular carriers were already calling it 4G.
The way I read it, and I'm not arguing, is that the ITU-R acknowledge the use of the term "4G" for the forerunner technologies due to the fact that they are already being called "4G", but also stated that these are "Forerunner" technologies to what they have listed and documented as 4G. Reading it over and over again it still says the same thing to "ME" which is that although current technology is "NOT" the 4G specified by the ITU-R the current "advanced" technology that has gone up a level in speeds and service can use the term 4G for a way to differentiate it from 3G.
To me that press release was more like a way to stem off problems from providers already using the term "4G", which when T-Mobile, Spring, and Verizon all launched what they called "4G" they didn't match ITU-R spec at all. By putting out a press release allowing the term "4G" to be applied to the "forerunner" technologies to the "4G Standard" that has been released by the ITU-R it allowed the avoidance of anyone actually reading the actual specs and calling carriers on the fact that it doesn't follow the standards for "4G" listed by the ITU-R.
Essentially to me it seems more like carriers putting pressure on the ITU-R to somehow allow them to continue to use the term "4G" to their current technologies, even though they don't meat the standards set forth by the ITU-R, in order to avoid any complications caused by not yet having the technology to meet those standards in place.