ITU-T SG 17
Information session for
Rapporteurs/Editors and
other ‘officials’ of the
Study Group
Geneva, 23 August 2011
Outline
1.
Role of chairmen, Rapporteurs, editors, liaison officers etc.
2.
Modifying or creating new Questions
3.
Types of meeting document and their usage
4.
Coordination of the work (liaisons, GSI, JCA …)
5.
Working with outside organizations: A.4, A.6 and A.5; A.23
6.
Meetings outside Geneva
7.
Electronic meetings
8.
Rapporteur meetings
9.
Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T
Recommendations
10. Author’s guide for drafting ITU-T Recommendations
2
Role of chairmen, Rapporteurs,
editors, liaison officers etc.
Res*.1 §3
Rec. A.1
* In this presentation, unless otherwise noted, Resolutions mentioned
refer to Res. adopted at WTSA-08
3
Governance and structure
ITU Plenipotentiary
Assemblies (PP)
(every 4 years)
WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION
STANDARDIZATION ASSEMBLY
Workshops,
Seminars,
Symposia, …
TELECOMMUNICATION
STANDARDIZATION
ADVISORY GROUP
JCA
IPR ad hoc
WORKING
PARTY
Focus
Groups
Q
STUDY GROUP
WORKING
PARTY
GSIs
STUDY GROUP
WORKING
PARTY
WORKING
PARTY
Q
Q
Q
Consensus
STUDY GROUP
Q
Q = Questions  Develop Recommendations
JCA: Joint Coordination Activity
GSI: 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)
4
Res.1 §3
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
5
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/surprises
Rapporteurs 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 level
Editors
–
Appointed by Rapporteur with the agreement of the
Rapporteurs Group
6
Criteria for Rapporteurs, editors
Appointment primarily based on their
expertise in the subject to be studied /
text to be developed
Rapporteurs: Commitment should be
for the whole study period, but there is
more turn around at this level
Editors: Commitment at least until the
approval of the work item
–
… and support for maintenance issues
7
Role of SG chairman
The chairman shall direct the debates during the
meeting, with the assistance of TSB
–
General Rules, specific Sector provisions
Proposes to the plenary new chairs and vice-chairs
of WPs and Rapporteurs
Ensure all members can fully express themselves
Authorized to decide that there shall be no
discussion on Questions on which insufficient
Contributions have been received
IPR roll call
Judgement after AAP LC/AR
Authorize Rapporteur group meetings
Ensure that work progresses in between meetings
8
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
9
Responsibilities: Rapporteurs [1]
Coordinate the detailed study following guidelines provided by
WP or SG
Basic 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 SG
Adopt appropriate work methods
–
TSB EDH system, meetings of experts, etc
Provide 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
10
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 meeting
Delegate the relevant functions from the list
above to associate rapporteurs, editors
and/or liaison rapporteurs as necessary
–
Delegation does not transfer responsibility
11
Responsibilities: Rapporteurs [3]
Responsible for the quality of their
texts
–
Delegation to editors does not relinquish
the responsibility
Progress on the basis of written
contributions
Establish and update the Question’s
work programme
12
Modifying or creating new
Questions
13
Rev/new Questions between WTSAs
Min: 1 month
Only very
exceptional
cases!!!
Min: 2 months
TSB distributes
Question to
Members (§7.1.3)
SG itself proposes
new or revised
Question (§7.1.4)
See §7.1.2 for
Question text
template
SG reviews and
agrees to submit
Question for
approval (§7.1.6)
Urgent
case?
(§7.1.8)
LS sent to TSAG
for endorsement or
suggested changes
(§7.1.7)
No
Yes
At lest four
members commit
themselves to
support the work
(§7.2.2)
Next TSAG meeting
Members submit
proposed
Questions (§7.1.1)
OK from TSB
Director, TSAG
chairman, other
SG chairs (§7.1.8)
TSAG reviews and
recommends
(§7.2.4)
LS sent to TSAG
for noting (§7.2.5)
Yes
(§7.2.3a)
Consensus at
SG? (§7.2.2)
No
Director notifies
members of
approval
(§7.2.3c)
Member States
replies (§7.2.3b)
Director requests
Member States’
approval (§7.2.3a)
SG requests
consultation of
Member States
(§7.2.3)
Res.1 §7
14
Res.1 §7.4
Sequence for deletion of Questions
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
meetings
Special consideration can be given to “strategic
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
15
Types of meeting documents and
their usage
16
SG Meeting documents
Formal 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)
17
GSIs, JCAs, focus groups
GSIs
–
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 documents
Focus 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 possible
JCAs
–
Also define their own documentation system, usually kept
simple, if exists at all
18
Working with outside
organizations
Rec. A.4, A.6 and A.5
Rec. A.23
19
Workshops, seminars
Both a promotion and a working tool
Logistic support of TSB, technical lead from the SG
Two 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, etc
Various focus:
–
–
–
–
Study group strategy focused
Information focused
Tutorial focused
Promotion focused
Audio and written archives: promotion and education tools
Updated list (and link to past ones):
http://itu.int/ITU-T/worksem
20
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 possible
Qualification 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
21
About meetings
22
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
23
Comparison
Formal 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/Convener
BOTH types of meeting must be equally transparent
24
SG/WP Meetings outside Geneva
Invited 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 participants
Cancelation: fall back to original dates in Geneva
Specific requirements vary from SG to SG
TSB has example requirements based on recent
experiences (e.g. WiFi, Internet access, size &
number of meeting rooms, etc)
25
Electronic meetings
Increase 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 Systems
Important 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”
26
Rapporteur group meetings
Rec.A.1 §s 2.3.3.6, 2.3.3.10, 11, 13,
14, 15
27
Six steps
Pre-authorize
Plan
Authorize
Confirm
Hold
Report
28
Rapporteur meetings:
pre-authorization
At SG or WP meeting, obtain agreement in principle
to hold a RG meeting
Provide
–
–
Host, venue, dates (tentative or confirmed)
Mandate for the meeting (e.g. items for discussion)
Controversial topics: need to be more specific
Normally at least 2 months notice
List 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
29
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 availability
RG meetings in Geneva: as soon as possible, ask TSB for room
availability
RG 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
30
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
representation
Further considerations
–
–
collocated with other related Questions?
strategic importance of holding the meeting
31
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 chairmen
Update displayed in the SG website
32
Rapporteur meetings : report
Obligation, 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
33
Alternative approval process
(AAP) for ITU-T
Recommendations
34
ITU-T A.8
AAP applies to Recommendations of the ITU-T
having no policy and regulatory implications
AAP starts when a WP or SG has consented a
text, i.e. concluded that the work on a
Recommendation is sufficiently mature
AAP covers the majority of the ITU-T work.
About 95% of Recommendations go thru AAP
Approved AAP and TAP Recommendations
have the same status in ITU-T
A.8 describes the set of events of the approval
process
35
ITU-T A.8 – Process overview
Approved
LC
4 weeks
3 weeks
4
SG or
WP
meeting
(1)
Edited
Director's
text announcement
for LC and posting
(2)
for LC
(3)
(b)
AR
3 weeks
9
LC: Last Call
AR: Additional Review
Study group
chairman action
(b)
Edited
Director's
text announcement
for AR and posting
(8)
for AR
(10)
Text subject to
adjustment
Approved
Director's
SG
announcement
Meeting
and posting
(6)
(5)
(b)
Approved
11
Director's
notification
and publication
(see Rec. A.11)
(12)
Text
review
36
ITU-T A.8 – Last call
4-week time period beginning with the Director of
TSB announcement
Member States and Sector Members can comment
According to Resolution 31, Associates can also comment
TSB post the comments received
Decision by the study group chairman, in
consultation with TSB
No comments -> Approval
Typographical comments -> Approval with typographical
changes
Comments of substance
-> Initiate the comments resolution
-> Consider the comments at next study group meeting
37
ITU-T A.8 – Comments resolution
Under the direction of the study group
chairman
Accomplished by appropriate study group
experts
Comments are addressed by correspondence
or at meetings
New edited draft Recommendation is
prepared and provided to TSB
Decision by the study group chairman, in
consultation with TSB
-> Initiate additional review
-> Consider approval at next study group meeting
38
ITU-T A.8 – Additional review
3-week time period beginning with the
Director of TSB announcement
Member States and Sector Members can
comment
According to Resolution 31, Associates cannot comment
TSB post the comments received
Decision by the study group chairman, in
consultation with TSB
No comments -> Approval
Typographical comments -> Approval
Comments of substance -> consider approval at next
study group meeting
39
ITU-T A.8 – Procedure at study group
meeting
Intention to approve the Recommendation at study group
meeting is announced by the Director of TSB
Study group review the draft text and associated comments
Changes 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 meeting
The 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 present
If the Recommendation is not approved, the study group chairman,
after consultation with the parties concerned may proceed without
further consent to a next AAP
40
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/
41
Contents of the guide
This 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
42
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
43