alternative approval process (aap) for itu-t recommendations itu-t a.8 (10/2008)
DESCRIPTION
Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T Recommendations ITU-T A.8 (10/2008). Georges Sebek, ITU/TSB. Geneva, 15-16 December 2008. Outline. Approval process description AAP best practices guidelines AAP database. Approval process description. ITU-T A.8. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Tutorial for leadership teams of ITU-T study groups, TSAG, tariff groups and focus groups
Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T Recommendations
ITU-T A.8 (10/2008)
Georges Sebek, ITU/TSB
Geneva, 15-16 December 2008
2Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
Outline
Approval process descriptionAAP best practices guidelinesAAP database
3Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
Approval process description
4Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8AAP applies to Recommendations of the ITU-T having no policy and regulatory implicationsAAP starts when a WP or SG has consented a text, i.e. concluded that the work on a Recommendation is sufficiently matureAAP covers the majority of the ITU-T work. About 95% of Recommendations go thru AAPApproved AAP and TAP Recommendations have the same status in ITU-TA.8 describes the set of events of the approval process
5Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – Process overview
4(b )
9 11
(b )
(b )
S G o rW P
m e et in g( )1
E d ite dte x t
fo r L C( )2
D ire cto r 'sa nn o un c em en t
a nd p o stin gfo r L C
( )3
E d ite dte x t
fo r A R( )8
D ir e cto r 'sa nn o un c em en t
a nd p o st in gfo r A R
( )1 0
D ir e c tor 'sa nn o un c em en t
a nd p o st in g( )5
S GM e e tin g
( )6
D ire cto r 'sn o t if ic a tio n
a nd p u b lic a tio n(se e R ec . A .11 )
( )12
3 w e ek s
L C : L as t C a llA R : A d di tio n a l R e v ie w
A p pro ve d
A p pr o ve d
A p pro ve dA R
3 w e ek s
L C4 w e ek s
Study groupchairman action
Text subject toadjustment
Text review
6Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – Last call
4-week time period beginning with the Director of TSB announcementMember States and Sector Members can comment
According to Resolution 31, Associates can also commentTSB post the comments receivedDecision by the study group chairman, in consultation with TSB
No comments -> ApprovalTypographical comments -> Approval with typographical changesComments of substance
-> Initiate the comments resolution-> Consider the comments at next study group meeting
7Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – Comments resolutionUnder the direction of the study group chairmanAccomplished by appropriate study group expertsComments are addressed by correspondence or at meetingsNew edited draft Recommendation is prepared and provided to TSBDecision by the study group chairman, in consultation with TSB
-> Initiate additional review-> Consider approval at next study group meeting
8Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – Additional review 3-week time period beginning with the Director of TSB announcementMember States and Sector Members can comment
According to Resolution 31, Associates cannot commentTSB post the comments receivedDecision by the study group chairman, in consultation with TSB
No comments -> ApprovalTypographical comments -> ApprovalComments of substance -> consider approval at next study group meeting
9Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – Procedure at study group meeting
Intention to approve the Recommendation at study group meeting is announced by the Director of TSBStudy group review the draft text and associated commentsChanges are made during the meeting based on comments, contributions, temporary documents, including liaison statements
Changes should not have a major impact on the intent of the Recommendation or depart from points of principle agreed at previous WP or SG meetingThe study group chairman, in consultation with the TSB considers whether the changes are reasonable and the proposed text stable
A Member State present can declare that the text has policy and regulatory implications or there is a doubt
Approval shall proceed under TAP (Resolution 1)Approval must be unopposed
If unopposed agreement is not reached, Recommendation is approved if no more than one Member State present opposes the decision further to consultation with their Sector Members presentIf the Recommendation is not approved, the study group chairman, after consultation with the parties concerned may proceed without further consent to a next AAP
10Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
AAP best practices guidelines
11Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – Best practices guidelines
ITU-T has considerable experience with AAPAAP has been very successfulSome issues have arisen in relation with:– transparency– consent– timelines for the AAP– who is allowed to comment– changing from AAP to TAP– the spirit of the LC and AR
12Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
AAP is handled in a transparent wayResponsibilities of study groups and TSB are clearly understood
Best practices - Transparency
13Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
Event Action Responsibility (see Note
1)Comment received by TSB during LC or AR
a) immediate publication at the SG website (TSB is requested to implement a mechanism to draw the attention of the users that comments have been submitted)
TSB
b) confirmation of the reception to the commenter (MS, SM and Associates) TSB
Note 2: comments must only address those parts of texts that were consented
Best practices - Transparency
14Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
LC Comment resolution
a) consideration of the comments received under the responsibility of the SG chairman SG chairman
b) decision by the SG chairman in consultation with TSB based on assessment under a): SG chairman
-option b1: all comments submitted are typographical, Rec approved [Status: A]
-option b2: some comments are of substance, comment resolution starts [Status: LJ]
Note 3: the TSB should prepare a table “Disposition of comments” to record the different steps (same table format for all SGs)
TSB
c) communication of the decision including the rationale in case of option b2 to all commenters and information on the decision posted at the SG website
TSB
d) in case of option b2, comment resolution is initiated under the direction of the SG chairman. This is accomplished by study group experts involving the commenters with the objective to reach an agreement on one of three options:
- option d1: agreement on a revised text- option d2: comments cannot be resolved- option d3: agreement to not change the LC text
SG chairman
e) decision by the SG chairman on option d1, d2 or d3- in case of option d1, the text is posted for AR [Status: AR]- in case of option d2, the LC text and all comments are sent to the next SG
meeting for resolution and possible approval [Status: SG]- in case of option d3: the LC text is approved [Status: A]
SG chairmanTSBTSB
f) communication of the decision e) to the commenters and information posted at SG website. It includes the reasons for the decision.
TSB
15Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
AR comment resolution
A) consideration of the comments received under the responsibility of the SG chair SG chairman
B) decision by the SG chair in consultation with TSB based on assessment under A):-option B1: all comments submitted are typographical, Rec. approved
[Status: A]-option B2: some comments are of substance: LC and AR text and all
comments are sent to the next SG meeting for resolution and proposal [Status: SG]
SG chairman
C) communication of the decision B) to the commenters and information posted at SG website. It includes the reasons for the decision.
TSB
Note 1: Generally ‘TSB’ means the Counsellor responsible for the relevant SG
16Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
AAP is initiated based upon consent at a study group or working party meetingSector Members and Member states can express an opinion regarding consent and decision is based on consensusWhen text of draft Recommendation is available prior to the meeting where AAP is to be initiated, organizations opposed to consent should be encouraged to state their position formally via a contribution received by the TSB prior to the meeting
Best practices - Consent
17Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
Best practices – Timelines for the AAP
TG120490-00
4(b)
(c)
9 11
(a)
(a) (b)
(a)(b)
SG orWP
meeting(1)
Editedtext
for LC(2)
Director'sannouncement
and postingfor LC
(3)
LC4 weeks
Editedtext
for AR(8)
Director'sannouncement
and postingfor AR
(10)
Director'sannouncement
and posting(5)
SGmeeting
(6)
Director'snotification
and publication(12)
3 weeks
LC: Last callAR: Additional review
Approved
Approved
Approved
Commentresolution
(7)AR
3 weeks
2 weeks(1) 2 weeks(1)4 weeks(1)
5 weeks 9 weeks 12 weeks
(1) Time for Chairman to decide on the course of action
18Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
Finalized text of Recommendation must be handed to TSB (as one file) by the end of the SG/WP consent meeting.The time, for TSB work, between points (2) - (3), (9) - (10) and (11b) - (5) is 1 week.The “consent” to submit a Recommendation under the AAP process for approval should be reached only for Recommendations that are “REALLY” sufficiently mature. Texts showing only draft “Contents” or “Index”, e.g. leaving further work to be done at Rapporteur meeting level, should not be adopted.When, exceptionally, there is the need for further “editorial” work (after the consent date), the edited text for posting (LC comments period, item (2) of figure should be available to TSB no later than 1 month and a half after the “consent” date.In exceptional cases where it is necessary to apply also the AR period, the edited text for AR period comments has to be available to TSB no later than 9 weeks after the deadline of point (4). (5 weeks needed for comment resolution (1) and preparation of the new edited text, period (7) of figure In case that a Recommendation needs, after the consent date, an “extended” time, longer than 1 month and a half, to be “editorially” revised for approval at any stage (LC, AR or next SG meeting), taking into account the timing shown in figure above the following should be noted:
– The latest date for a text available to TSB, at point (2), should be 8 weeks maximum.
Best practices – Notes to the timelines
19Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 says only Member States and Sector Members can comment during LC and ARISO, IETF are Sector Membersit is suggested that study group chairman reviews the comments from A.4, A.5 and A.6 other organizations, and feed them informally in the processResolution 31 allows Associates to comment during LC (not AR) but they cannot take part in the decision making process
Best practices – Who is allowed to comment
20Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
This caused considerable discussion in some study groupsThe debate has been over the process for notifying the request for reconsiderationSee companion presentation
Best practices – Changing AAP to TAP
21Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
Best practices – The “spirit” of the LC and AR
Not use LC/AR for the delaying or preventing approvalMember participating in development of Recs. should limit comments to correcting errors/ambiguities, not negate previously given consentLC comments to address only new or modified textLC comments not to repeat material already submitted prior to consentOnly note comments on scope and objectives without technical proposals for changesAccept technical changes resulting from fundamental change on scope or purpose of Rec. if there is no objections from any concerned experts Comments should not only indicate the reasons for not approving the text but also the possible changes to facilitate the approval Focus on identification and correction of technical errors. Not encourage comments on style or editorial issues
LC comments proposing changes to clarify, improve the text or correct errors should be introduced only if the text is incorrect or inaccurate or incurs significant risk of misinterpretationComments addressing someone else’s comments should only be submitted after the study group chairman decision to enter the comment resolution processFor AR comments, similar considerations to LC comments applyAdditional Review is not meant as another opportunity to submit LC comments. AR comments to address those parts agreed as outcome of LC comment resolution processWhen comment resolution process fails to produce an agreed text for additional review, consideration at next study group meeting may be based on LC text or a revised text that may be prepared in the meantime
22Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
AAP database
23Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008
ITU-T A.8 – AAP database
See companion presentation