Presentation on theme: "International Telecommunication Union D3 Methodology Objectives for this meeting from Chairman of WG-A Yoh Somemura (NTT, Japan) Vice Chairman of FG on."— Presentation transcript:
International Telecommunication Union D3 Methodology Objectives for this meeting from Chairman of WG-A Yoh Somemura (NTT, Japan) Vice Chairman of FG on ICTs & CC 24-27 March 2009, Hiroshima
2 Structure of FG Three Working Groups WG A: Definition and Methodology WG B: Gap Analysis and Standards Roadmap WG C: Direct and Indirect Impact Management Committee A group that organizes meetings and events Includes: Chairman, VCs, Editors, Representatives of TSB, and other volunteers with experience of ITU or related activities WG A Definitions and Methodology WG A Definitions and Methodology WG C Direct & Indirect Impact WG C Direct & Indirect Impact WG B Gap Analysis WG B Gap Analysis FG on ICT&CC, Management Committee Calculating mitigation benefits Identifying gaps in standards Filling gaps in standards
3 1. Scope The Focus Group, established in accordance with ITU-T Rec A.7, will identify from the standardization viewpoint, within the competences of ITU-T, the impact of ICTs on Climate Change, in particular the reduction of ICT’s own emissions over their entire lifecycle (direct impact), the mitigation that follows through the adoption of ICTs in other relevant sectors (indirect impact), and the monitoring of relevant climate parameters. 3. FG Objectives The FG should analyze and identify gaps in the areas of definitions, general principles, methodology and appropriate tools to characterize the impact of ICTs on Climate Change and support the development of appropriate international standards. 5. Specific tasks and deliverables 5.1 Definitions The FG, based on existing terms and definitions used in ITU, should: identify the terms and definitions (including units, see section 5.3) needed to analyze the three major relationships between ICTs and Climate Change; identify differences between existing terms and definitions; develop and propose new definitions where necessary (gaps). Deliverable: Report on terms and definitions, September 2008 Terms of Reference (extract 1/2) of the FG on ICTs and Climate Change (TSAG/July 2008)
4 5. Specific tasks and deliverables 5.3 Methodology The FG should develop a methodology to describe and estimate present and future user energy consumption of ICTs over their entire life-cycle. This should include: a calculation methodology of energy consumption saved through ICT utilization; the definition of basic units relevant to the cases considered; the identification, gathering and processing of relevant parameters (e.g. user behavior); the principles and tools to measure and evaluate the results; a list of examples of the uses of how ICTs can replace or displace other energy- consuming technologies/uses; analysis of existing standards and a proposal for development of new standards, if needed. Deliverable: Report on Methodology: Interim report, December 2008; Final March 2009 Terms of Reference (extract 2/2) of the FG on ICTs and Climate Change (TSAG/July 2008)
5 Deliverables of FG (Review) 1. Report on “terms and definitions”, September 2008 E.g., which unit to use in the FG? 2. Report on “gap analysis” and proposed roadmap, December 2008 What is already happening for standardization? What more can the FG or SGs do? 3. Report on “methodology”: Interim report, December 2008; Final report, March 2009 Estimate present and future per-user energy consumption of ICTs over their entire lifecycles Internationally agreed common methodology for measuring the direct and indirect impacts of ICTs on climate change 4. Proposed Tools and Guidelines, December 2008 Work with SGs in producing checklists? How can technologies be improved?
6 - Reduction of ICT’s own emissions over their entire lifecycle (direct impact) => Power reduction methods - Mitigation that follows through the adoption of ICTs in other relevant sectors (indirect impact) => CO2 saving calculation methods Internationally agreed common methodology for measuring the following impacts of ICTs on climate change: Goal of FG
7 Deliverable 3: Methodology Updated draft base-line text of D3 was posted to fixit on 5 th March. This included references to the 30 or so contributions made up to the November meeting. (Comment deadline: 18 th March) (Draft base-line text and Executive Summary have NOT yet referred to the 14 new contributions submitted for Hiroshima meeting.) Table of Contents: 7.1 Scope 7.2 Relevant metrics and Units 7.3 Methodologies for ICT impact assessment 7.3.1 Impact of own GHG emissions 7.3.2 Impact on other sectors 7.4 Impacts of ICTs against Climate Change 7.4.1 ICT-sector GHG emissions mitigation 7.4.2 Impact of ICT on other sectors 7.5 Parameters potentially influencing adoption of ICT solutions Comments: Request to solve the duplication between D3 & D4 from Chief-editor of D4. This above comment is based upon C-87. Proposed resolution: We will use the D4 reference (e.g. see D4, Section xxx) if it is adequate. Regarding to D3 editing, C-79, C-80, C-81, C-82, C-84, C-85 and C-87 were submitted as new contributions. Editors: Chief editor:T. Origuchi (NTT, Japan) Co editors:G. Buty (Alcatel-Lucent) Y. KIM (ETRI, Korea) D. Marquet (France Telecom) H. Scheck (Nokia-Siemens) W. Vereecken (Ghent Univesity) I appreciate great efforts of colleagues (Editor Group of D3).
8 Duplication between D3 & D4 In Base-line text, to meet the requirements of ToR is the most important mission. It is important to harmonize among all deliverables. As a general rule, we should write each deliverable based on submitted contributions. Some duplications would be tolerated and not be essential matter, if each deliverable is logical and consistency in the light of ToR. It would not be the best plan to remove all duplications, because we do not have any time to spare for editing. Regarding to duplications among each deliverable, there also happened in the case of FG-NGN and FG-IPTV. It is necessary to improve quality of description in case of making recommendation in SG, however it would be unnecessary to improve it perfectly in FG. However, in Executive Summary, it is desirable that there is no duplication. Our mission is to complete our FG in the Hiroshima meeting on March just as planned. We should begin the discussion in suitable SG after the next TSAG meeting (April 2009). I would like to solve any issues with you for accomplishment of our mission.