Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Geneva, 23 August 2011 ITU-T SG 17 Information session for Rapporteurs/Editors and other ‘officials’ of the Study Group.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Geneva, 23 August 2011 ITU-T SG 17 Information session for Rapporteurs/Editors and other ‘officials’ of the Study Group."— Presentation transcript:

1 Geneva, 23 August 2011 ITU-T SG 17 Information session for Rapporteurs/Editors and other ‘officials’ of the Study Group

2 2 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

3 3 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

4 4 Q = Questions  Develop RecommendationsJCA: Joint Coordination Activity GSI: Global Standards InitiativeTSB: Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (= ITU-T Secretariat) Note: Experts progressing the work of a Question are frequently referred to as “Rapporteur Group” (RG) WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION ASSEMBLY WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION ASSEMBLY TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION ADVISORY GROUP TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION ADVISORY GROUP Governance and structure IPR ad hoc Workshops, Seminars, Symposia, … Consensus WORKING PARTY Q WORKING PARTY WORKING PARTY STUDY GROUP Q Q Q Focus Groups Q WORKING PARTY GSIs JCA ITU Plenipotentiary Assemblies (PP) (every 4 years)

5 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 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/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

7 7 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

8 8 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

9 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 10 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

11 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 meeting Delegate the relevant functions from the list above to associate rapporteurs, editors and/or liaison rapporteurs as necessary – Delegation does not transfer responsibility

12 12 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

13 13 Modifying or creating new Questions

14 14 Rev/new Questions between WTSAs Res.1 §7

15 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 meetings Special consideration can be given to “strategic Questions” Res.1 §7.4

16 16 Types of meeting documents and their usage

17 17 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)

18 18 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

19 19 Working with outside organizations Rec. A.4, A.6 and A.5 Rec. A.23

20 20 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):

21 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 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 

22 22 About meetings

23 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 24 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

25 25 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)

26 26 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”

27 27 Rapporteur group meetings Rec.A.1 §s,, 11, 13, 14, 15

28 28 Six steps Pre-authorize Plan Authorize Confirm Hold Report

29 29 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

30 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 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

31 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 representation Further considerations – collocated with other related Questions? – strategic importance of holding the meeting

32 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 chairmen Update displayed in the SG website

33 33 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

34 34 Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T Recommendations

35 35 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

36 36 ITU-T A.8 – Process overview Study group chairman action Text subject to adjustment Text review

37 37 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

38 38 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

39 39 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

40 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 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

41 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:

42 42 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 :  Annex D : Actions required to improve the quality of ITU-T Recommendations

43 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:  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]. 

Download ppt "Geneva, 23 August 2011 ITU-T SG 17 Information session for Rapporteurs/Editors and other ‘officials’ of the Study Group."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google