Geneva, 23 August 2011 - PowerPoint Presentation

Geneva, 23 August 2011
Geneva, 23 August 2011

Embed / Share - Geneva, 23 August 2011

Presentation on theme: "Geneva, 23 August 2011"— Presentation transcript


Geneva, 23 August 2011


Information session for Rapporteurs/Editors and other ‘officials’ of the Study GroupSlide2



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


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


Q =


 Develop Recommendations


: Joint Coordination Activity


Global Standards Initiative


: Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (= ITU-T Secretariat)

Note: Experts progressing the work of a Question are frequently referred to as “

Rapporteur Group” (RG)



Governance and structure

IPR ad hoc


Seminars,Symposia, …















Focus Groups






ITU Plenipotentiary

Assemblies (PP)

(every 4 years)Slide5


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


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


Appointed by Rapporteur with the agreement of the Rapporteurs GroupSlide7


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


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


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


Fine line to walk: editors while editors are not contributors – separation of roles

Record the consensus points, maintain issues lists, etcSlide10


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


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


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


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


Modifying or creating new QuestionsSlide14


Rev/new Questions between WTSAs

Res.1 §7Slide15


Sequence for deletion of Questions


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


Types of meeting documents and their usageSlide17


SG Meeting documents

Formal meetings


members only


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


GSIs, JCAs, focus groups


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


Also define their own documentation system, usually kept simple, if exists at allSlide19


Working with outside organizations


A.4, A.6 and A.5

Rec. A.23



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): Slide21


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

 Slide22


About meetingsSlide23


Types of meetings

“Formal” meetings:

TSAG, Study Group and Working Party meetings

“Informal” meetings:

Electronic meetings


& 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



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



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



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


Electronic meetings

Increase in use (live, off-line)


E-mail or forum based discussion threads

Web-based collaboration

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


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


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


: 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


Rapporteur group meetings

Rec.A.1 §s,, 11, 13, 14, 15Slide28


Six steps








Rapporteur meetings:


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


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


Rapporteur meetings:


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


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


Rapporteur meetings:


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


Rapporteur meetings:


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


Rapporteur meetings :


Obligation, as a TD, before the start of the next meeting of the parent group

If contains draft


: 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


Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T RecommendationsSlide35



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


ITU-T A.8 – Process overview

Study group

chairman action

Text subject to


Text reviewSlide37


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


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


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


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


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:


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.





groups are

requested to follow have been added as Annexes.Annex D : Actions required to improve the quality of ITU-T RecommendationsSlide43


Annex D:

Actions required to improve the quality

of ITU-T Recommendations

Before a draft Recommendation is proposed for approval, consent or determination, the


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: 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].

By: tawny-fly
Views: 95
Type: Public

Download Section

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.

View more...

If you wait a while, download link will show on top.Please download the presentation after loading the download link.

Geneva, 23 August 2011 - Description

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

Related Documents