Geneva, 23 August 2011

ITU-T SG 17 Information session

for Rapporteurs/Editors

and other ‘officials’ of the Study Group

2

Outline

1. Role of chairmen, Rapporteurs, editors, liaison officers etc.2. Modifying or creating new Questions3. Types of meeting document and their usage4. Coordination of the work (liaisons, GSI, JCA …)5. Working with outside organizations: A.4, A.6 and A.5; A.236. Meetings outside Geneva7. Electronic meetings8. Rapporteur meetings 9. Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T

Recommendations10. Author’s guide for drafting ITU-T Recommendations

3

Role of chairmen, Rapporteurs, editors, liaison officers etc.

Res*.1 §3Rec. A.1

* In this presentation, unless otherwise noted, Resolutions mentioned refer to Res. adopted at WTSA-08

4

Q = Questions Develop Recommendations JCA: Joint Coordination ActivityGSI: Global Standards Initiative TSB: Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (= ITU-T Secretariat)Note: Experts progressing the work of a Question are frequently referred to as “Rapporteur Group” (RG)

WORLD TELECOMMUNICATIONSTANDARDIZATION ASSEMBLY

TELECOMMUNICATIONSTANDARDIZATIONADVISORY GROUP

Governance and structure

IPR ad hoc

Workshops,Seminars,

Symposia, …

Con

sens

us

WORKINGPARTY

Q

WORKINGPARTY

WORKINGPARTY

STUDY GROUP STUDY GROUP STUDY GROUP

QQQ

Focus Groups

Q

WORKINGPARTY

GSIs

JCA

ITU Plenipotentiary Assemblies (PP)

(every 4 years)

5

Study group management

Normally understood as SG chair & VCs, WP chairs & VCs and variants, plus SG Counsellor/Advisor/Engineer + Assistant

SG Officials: add Rapporteurs (and variants), liaison officers

Res.1 §3

6

Who nominates?SG chairs and VCs

– WTSA-08 by agreement (normally expressed with acclamation) based on proposal from the heads of delegations

WP Chairs and variations– Study group by acclamation based on SG management

proposal– Normally well coordinated and accommodating the

membership views to avoid problems/surprisesRapporteurs and variations

– SG / WP chair to propose names (in coordination with the other members of the SG management)

– Formally by agreement of the WP (SG only if the Question is not allocated to a specific WP)

But normally also endorsed at SG levelEditors

– Appointed by Rapporteur with the agreement of the Rapporteurs Group

7

Criteria for Rapporteurs, editors

Appointment primarily based on their expertise in the subject to be studied / text to be developedRapporteurs: Commitment should be for the whole study period, but there is more turn around at this levelEditors: Commitment at least until the approval of the work item– … and support for maintenance issues

8

Role of SG chairmanThe chairman shall direct the debates during the meeting, with the assistance of TSB

– General Rules, specific Sector provisionsProposes to the plenary new chairs and vice-chairs of WPs and RapporteursEnsure all members can fully express themselvesAuthorized to decide that there shall be no discussion on Questions on which insufficient Contributions have been receivedIPR roll callJudgement after AAP LC/ARAuthorize Rapporteur group meetingsEnsure that work progresses in between meetings

9

Responsibilities: WP chairs, Editors

WP chairmen– Provide technical and administrative leadership – Recognized as having a role of equal importance

to that of a study group vice‑chairman

Editors– Fine line to walk: editors while editors are not

contributors – separation of roles– Record the consensus points, maintain issues

lists, etc

10

Responsibilities: Rapporteurs [1]Coordinate the detailed study following guidelines provided by WP or SGBasic goal: assist in producing Recommendations

– Not obliged to produce them (e.g. lack of contributions)– Based on contributions received

Liaison role with other groups within and outside ITU, as needed and authorized by the SGAdopt appropriate work methods

– TSB EDH system, meetings of experts, etcProvide timely progress reporting to parent WP/SG

– particularly for work by correspondence or otherwise outside SG & WP meetings

– Rapporteur Group meetings, editing meetings, etc– TD not later than the first day of the meeting– Draft new/rev Recommendations: whenever possible submit TD at

least 6 weeks before the SG/WP meeting

11

Responsibilities: Rapporteurs [2]Advance notice to SG/WP & TSB of intention to hold Rapporteur Group meetings, especially unplanned ones– See slide ahead with further details concerning

Rapporteur Group meetings.Establish a group of active "collaborators" where appropriate– Updated list of collaborators given to TSB at each

WP/SG meetingDelegate the relevant functions from the list above to associate rapporteurs, editors and/or liaison rapporteurs as necessary– Delegation does not transfer responsibility

12

Responsibilities: Rapporteurs [3]

Responsible for the quality of their texts– Delegation to editors does not relinquish

the responsibilityProgress on the basis of written contributionsEstablish and update the Question’s work programme

13

Modifying or creating new Questions

14

Rev/new Questions between WTSAs

Res.1 §7

Members submit proposed

Questions (§7.1.1)

TSB distributes Question to

Members (§7.1.3)

SG reviews and agrees to submit

Question for approval (§7.1.6)

LS sent to TSAG for endorsement or suggested changes

(§7.1.7)

TSAG reviews and recommends

(§7.2.4)

SG requests consultation of Member States

(§7.2.3)

Director notifies members of

approval

Director requests Member States’

approval (§7.2.3a)

Consensus at SG? (§7.2.2)

(§7.2.3c)

(§7.2.3a)

Member States replies (§7.2.3b)

Min: 1 monthMin: 2 months

Nex

t TS

AG

mee

tingSee §7.1.2 for

Question text template

SG itself proposes new or revised

Question (§7.1.4)

Urgent case?

(§7.1.8)

OK from TSB Director, TSAG chairman, other

SG chairs (§7.1.8)

At lest four members commit

themselves to support the work

(§7.2.2)

No

Yes

LS sent to TSAG for noting (§7.2.5)

Yes

No

Only very exceptional

cases!!!

15

Sequence for deletion of Questions

Steps:• By agreement at SG meeting• First Circular letter informing membership of the intention to

delete the Question• Two months deadline for Member States to comment• No opposition: another Circular announcing deletion• Opposition (with reasons): back to SG at its next meeting for

reconsideration

Periodic check should be performed at SG meetings to identify Questions that are candidate for deletion, e.g.

– work terminated– not receiving Contributions for current and two previous

meetingsSpecial consideration can be given to “strategic Questions”

Res.1 §7.4

16

Types of meeting documents and their usage

17

SG Meeting documentsFormal meetings– Contributions members only– Reports produced by TSB– Temporary documents SG officials

Also: Liaison Statements– Working documents these “do not exist”– [TSB] Circular Letters whole ITU membership– [SG] Collective Letters only SG membership

Rapporteur group meetings– Rapporteur group documents

(single or multiple series)

18

GSIs, JCAs, focus groupsGSIs

– Even though GSIs are not a group per se, some have a separate document series

Increase coordination of documents when meeting of RGs (not SGs)Better visibility

– Handling similar to formal meeting documentsFocus groups

– They define their own series, from simple (single series) to complex ones (Inputs, outputs, TDs, LS, reports, etc)

BUT Practice shows it should be as simple as possibleJCAs

– Also define their own documentation system, usually kept simple, if exists at all

19

Working with outside organizations

Rec. A.4, A.6 and A.5Rec. A.23

20

Workshops, seminarsBoth a promotion and a working toolLogistic support of TSB, technical lead from the SGTwo formats:

– Workshops – demonstrations, technical issue resolution, and for the creation of specific deliverables

– Seminars – sharing ITU-T vision and technical knowledge– Various designations: workshops, seminars, tutorials, symposia,

forums, etcVarious focus:

– Study group strategy focused– Information focused– Tutorial focused– Promotion focused

Audio and written archives: promotion and education toolsUpdated list (and link to past ones): http://itu.int/ITU-T/worksem

21

Forums, consortia and regional SDOs

Qualification for exchanging information:– Forums, consortia: Rec. A.4– Regional SDOs: Rec. A.6– Exchange of messages with non-qualified organizations is

also possibleQualification for normative referencing

– Rec. A.5– Objective: ensure implementability of ITU-T

Recommendations (access to text, RAND IPRs, stability of text, consensus-based, etc)

Initiated by the SG or by the external organization– Via the TSB director

List of qualified organizations on ITU-T website http://itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx

22

About meetings

23

Types of meetings“Formal” meetings:– TSAG, Study Group and Working Party meetings

“Informal” meetings:– Electronic meetings– Rapporteur & ad hoc group meetings– Correspondence groups (mostly TSAG)

Focus groups: case apart, as FGs define their own working methods

Focus here: SG and subordinated groups

24

ComparisonFormal meetings

– Documentation controlled by TSB– Convened by a Collective Letter– Strict rules for documentation deadline and participation

eligibility– Decision-making capability– Participation of secretariat Final reports by TSB

Informal meetings (incl. Rapporteur Group ones) – Documentation controlled by Rapporteur/Convener

Template, numbering, availability, archiving– Rapporteur is responsible for convening the meeting (see

next slides re: steps)– Participation of non-members

Attendance versus written contributions– Consensus-building but not decision-making– Secretariat not present

reporting by Rapporteur/ConvenerBOTH types of meeting must be equally transparent

25

SG/WP Meetings outside GenevaInvited by a member or with the OK from a Member State (especially if inviter is not a member)

– Invitation submitted to a WTSA or SG meeting– Needs agreement of TSB Director– Host must commit to cover at least costs surpassing allocated

TSB budget– Host to provide suitable facilities and services normally at no

cost to participantsCancelation: fall back to original dates in GenevaSpecific requirements vary from SG to SGTSB has example requirements based on recent experiences (e.g. WiFi, Internet access, size & number of meeting rooms, etc)

26

Electronic meetingsIncrease in use (live, off-line)

– Audio-conferences– E-mail or forum based discussion threads– Web-based collaboration

ITU-T trial, launched by TSAG in Dec 2007, to evaluate remote participation tools

– GoToMeeting: used extensively within ITU for short (>2 hours) meetings, with up to 30 participants

– GoToWebinar: used for covering Climate Change symposium in Kyoto, with up to 200 participants over 2 days (archived)

– WebEx: one year trial offered by Cisco SystemsImportant aspects to consider:

– All concerned experts be informed about them– Clear beginning and end times/dates– Take time differences into consideration– For live events, keep times short (<3 hours), “share the pain”

27

Rapporteur group meetings

Rec.A.1 §s 2.3.3.6, 2.3.3.10, 11, 13, 14, 15

28

Six steps

Pre-authorizePlanAuthorizeConfirmHoldReport

29

Rapporteur meetings:pre-authorization

At SG or WP meeting, obtain agreement in principle to hold a RG meetingProvide

– Host, venue, dates (tentative or confirmed)– Mandate for the meeting (e.g. items for discussion)

Controversial topics: need to be more specificNormally at least 2 months noticeList of pre-authorized RG meetings are listed in the SG home page

Urgent cases: SG management can authorize holding non-planned RG meetings

– Announcement needs to go out with extra antecedence

30

Rapporteur meetings: planning TSB does not circulate convening letters for meetings below working party level

– notice is posted on the SG web page, as provided by the study group and update it as needed

– Rapporteur is responsible for circulating meeting notices to the concerned experts (e.g. via mailing lists) soliciting contributions and participation

Rapporteur meetings, as such, should not be held during working party or study group meetings

– Discussion on a Question during the SG/WP meeting is not a meeting of the Question – it is just part (i.e. a session) of the SG/WP meeting

– During SG & WP meetings, the more relaxed rules at RG meetings are not applicable

document approval, submission deadlines, documentation availabilityRG meetings in Geneva: as soon as possible, ask TSB for room availabilityRG meetings outside Geneva: participants should not be charged for meeting facilities, unless agreed in advance by the study group and on an exceptional and fully justified case

– Caveat: no participant should be excluded from participation if he or she is unwilling to pay the charge

– Additional services offered by the host shall be voluntary, and there shall be no obligation on any of the participants resulting from these additional services

31

Rapporteur meetings: authorization

Authorization by SG management– Typically: by the SG chairman in consultation with TSB and

the concerned WP chair– Management can agree on a different arrangement

Three criteria to be met: – clear terms of reference– sufficient documentation to be discussed– sufficient number of participants / membership

representationFurther considerations

– collocated with other related Questions?– strategic importance of holding the meeting

32

Rapporteur meetings: confirm

Circulate confirmation of date and venue:– After authorization by SG management –

see next slide– At least three weeks before the meeting to

participants Copy to TSB and SG & WP chairmenUpdate displayed in the SG website

33

Rapporteur meetings : reportObligation, as a TD, before the start of the next meeting of the parent group

– If contains draft Recs: as much as possible at least six weeks before the meeting

Should include:– Date, venue and chairman– Attendance list with affiliations– Agenda of the meeting– Summary of technical inputs & results– Result of IPR roll call– LSs sent to other organizations

Additionally: stable archive of meeting documents needed– Default: SG Informal FTP Area

Transparency of the process succinct, clear, timely

34

Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T

Recommendations

35

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

36

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 stin gfo r A R

( )1 0

D ir e ctor 'sa nn o un c em en t

a nd p o stin g( )5

S GM e e tin g

( )6

D ire ctor 'sn ot if ic a t io 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 ditio n a l R e v ie w

A p pr o ve d

A p pro 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

37

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

38

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

39

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

40

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

41

Author’s guide for drafting ITU-T Recommendations

This author's guide permits uniform, efficient preparation of texts by TSB for publication. It covers the rules for drafting a Recommendation in a standard manner.

Available at an easy-to-remember URL:http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/go/authors-guide/

42

Contents of the guideThis author's guide is intended to provide a common approach to the preparation of ITU-T texts that are intended for publication, e.g., draft Recommendations.

It attempts to cover the kind of questions likely to arise in the preparation of an ITU-T Recommendation and provides, through application of its own rules, an illustration using the normal order of the elements of drafting a typical Recommendation.

For common texts developed with ISO/IEC, [ITU-T A.23] applies instead of this author's guide.

Some check-lists that study groups are requested to follow have been added as Annexes. Annex D : Actions required to improve the quality of ITU-T Recommendations

43

Annex D: Actions required to improve the quality of ITU-T Recommendations

Before a draft Recommendation is proposed for approval, consent or determination, the Rapporteur should ensure that all of the bullet points of the check list below have been reviewed and that they have been fulfilled adequately :

The draft, which is proposed for approval, consent or determination: has been thoroughly reviewed for technical accuracy; is technically sound with as few options as feasible; has content that does not conflict with the content of an already approved

Recommendation; does not contain case studies within the normative part; has only short illustrative examples, if necessary, included in the normative part; follows the author's guidelines (including the use of ITU-T templates, which can be found

at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/studygroups/templates/index.html ) has been spell-checked and is grammatically correct, to the extent practicable; contains definitions that have been developed after consulting the ITU-T Terms and

Definitions database and following the guidance of the standardization committee for vocabulary (SCV) (see Annex B);

has all acronyms, including those in the figures and tables, correctly spelled out; has the normative part making use of all references in clause 2 (References); has all references in clause 2 (References) qualified in accordance with [ITU-T A.5]. http://www.itu.int/ITU-R/go/terminology-database