ITUT SG 17 Information session for RapporteursEditors and other officials of the Study Group 2 Outline Role of chairmen Rapporteurs editors liaison officers etc Modifying or creating new Questions ID: 379845
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Geneva, 23 August 2011" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Geneva, 23 August 2011
ITU-T SG 17
Information session for Rapporteurs/Editors and other ‘officials’ of the Study GroupSlide2
2
Outline
Role of chairmen, Rapporteurs, editors, liaison officers etc.
Modifying or creating new Questions
Types of meeting document and their usage
Coordination of the work (liaisons, GSI, JCA …)
Working with outside organizations: A.4, A.6 and A.5; A.23
Meetings outside Geneva
Electronic meetings
Rapporteur meetings
Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T Recommendations
Author’s guide for drafting ITU-T RecommendationsSlide3
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-08Slide4
4
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)
WORLD TELECOMMUNICATIONSTANDARDIZATION ASSEMBLY
TELECOMMUNICATIONSTANDARDIZATIONADVISORY GROUP
Governance and structure
IPR ad hoc
Workshops,
Seminars,Symposia, …
Consensus
WORKING
PARTY
Q
WORKING
PARTY
WORKING
PARTY
STUDY GROUP
STUDY GROUP
STUDY GROUP
Q
Q
Q
Focus Groups
Q
WORKING
PARTY
GSIs
JCA
ITU Plenipotentiary
Assemblies (PP)
(every 4 years)Slide5
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 §3Slide6
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 GroupSlide7
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 issuesSlide8
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 meetingsSlide9
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, etcSlide10
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 meetingsRapporteur Group meetings, editing meetings, etcTD not later than the first day of the meetingDraft new/rev Recommendations: whenever possible submit TD at least 6 weeks before the SG/WP meetingSlide11
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 responsibilitySlide12
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 programmeSlide13
13
Modifying or creating new QuestionsSlide14
14
Rev/new Questions between WTSAs
Res.1 §7Slide15
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 §7.4Slide16
16
Types of meeting documents and their usageSlide17
17
SG Meeting documents
Formal meetings
Contributions
members only
Reports
produced by TSB
Temporary documents
SG officialsAlso: Liaison StatementsWorking documents these “do not exist”[TSB] Circular Letters whole ITU membership[SG] Collective Letters only
SG membershipRapporteur group meetingsRapporteur group documents(single or multiple series)Slide18
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 allSlide19
19
Working with outside organizations
Rec.
A.4, A.6 and A.5
Rec. A.23
Slide20
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 focusedTutorial focusedPromotion focusedAudio and written archives: promotion and education toolsUpdated list (and link to past ones): http://itu.int/ITU-T/worksem Slide21
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
http://itu.int/ITU-T/lists/qualified.aspx Slide22
22
About meetingsSlide23
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 groupsSlide24
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/ConvenerTemplate, numbering, availability, archivingRapporteur is responsible for convening the meeting (see next slides re: steps)Participation of non-membersAttendance versus written contributionsConsensus-building but not decision-makingSecretariat not present reporting by Rapporteur/ConvenerBOTH types of meeting must be equally transparentSlide25
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 budgetHost 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)Slide26
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 SystemsImportant aspects to consider:All concerned experts be informed about themClear beginning and end times/datesTake time differences into considerationFor live events, keep times short (<3 hours), “share the pain”Slide27
27
Rapporteur group meetings
Rec.A.1 §s 2.3.3.6, 2.3.3.10, 11, 13, 14, 15Slide28
28
Six steps
Pre-authorize
Plan
Authorize
Confirm
Hold
ReportSlide29
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 antecedenceSlide30
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 applicabledocument 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 caseCaveat: no participant should be excluded from participation if he or she is unwilling to pay the chargeAdditional services offered by the host shall be voluntary, and there shall be no obligation on any of the participants resulting from these additional servicesSlide31
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 meetingSlide32
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 websiteSlide33
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 meetingSummary of technical inputs & resultsResult of IPR roll callLSs sent to other organizationsAdditionally: stable archive of meeting documents neededDefault: SG Informal FTP AreaTransparency of the process succinct, clear, timelySlide34
34
Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T RecommendationsSlide35
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 processSlide36
36
ITU-T A.8 – Process overview
Study group
chairman action
Text subject to
adjustment
Text reviewSlide37
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 meetingSlide38
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 meetingSlide39
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 meetingSlide40
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 AAPSlide41
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/Slide42
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 : Actions required to improve the quality of ITU-T RecommendationsSlide43
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