tutorial for leadership teams of itu-t study groups, tsag, tariff groups and focus groups...

Tutorial for leadership teams of ITU-T study groups, TSAG, tariff groups and focus groups

Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T Recommendations

ITU-T A.8 (10/2008)

Georges Sebek, ITU/TSB

Geneva, 15-16 December 2008

2

Tutorial for SG & TSAG leadership teamsGeneva, 15-16 December 2008

Outline

Approval process descriptionAAP best practices guidelinesAAP database

3


Approval process description

4


ITU-T A.8

AAP applies to Recommendations of the ITU-T having no policy and regulatory implicationsAAP starts when a WP or SG has consented a text, i.e. concluded that the work on a Recommendation is sufficiently matureAAP covers the majority of the ITU-T work. About 95% of Recommendations go thru AAPApproved AAP and TAP Recommendations have the same status in ITU-TA.8 describes the set of events of the approval process

5


ITU-T A.8 – Process overview

4(b )

9 11

(b )

(b )

S G o rW P

m e et in g( )1

E d ite dte x t

fo r L C( )2

D ire cto r 'sa nn o un c em en t

a nd p o st in gfo r L C

( )3

E d ite dte x t

fo r A R( )8


a nd p o st in gfo r A R

( )1 0


a nd p o st in g( )5

S GM e e tin g

( )6

D ire cto r 'sn o t if ic a t io n

a nd p u b lic a tio n(s e e R ec . A .11 )

( )1 2

3 w e ek s

L C : L as t C al lA R : A d d i tio n a l R e v ie w

A p pro ve d

A p pro ve d

A p pro ve dA R

3 w e ek s

L C4 w e ek s

Study groupchairman action

Text subject toadjustment

Text review

6


ITU-T A.8 – Last call

4-week time period beginning with the Director of TSB announcementMember States and Sector Members can comment

According to Resolution 31, Associates can also comment

TSB post the comments receivedDecision by the study group chairman, in consultation with TSB

No comments -> ApprovalTypographical comments -> Approval with typographical changesComments of substance

-> Initiate the comments resolution-> Consider the comments at next study group meeting

7


ITU-T A.8 – Comments resolution

Under the direction of the study group chairmanAccomplished by appropriate study group expertsComments are addressed by correspondence or at meetingsNew edited draft Recommendation is prepared and provided to TSBDecision by the study group chairman, in consultation with TSB

-> Initiate additional review-> Consider approval at next study group meeting

8


ITU-T A.8 – Additional review

3-week time period beginning with the Director of TSB announcementMember States and Sector Members can comment

According to Resolution 31, Associates cannot comment

TSB post the comments receivedDecision by the study group chairman, in consultation with TSB

No comments -> ApprovalTypographical comments -> ApprovalComments of substance -> consider approval at next study group meeting

9


ITU-T A.8 – Procedure at study group meeting

Intention to approve the Recommendation at study group meeting is announced by the Director of TSBStudy group review the draft text and associated commentsChanges 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 meetingThe 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 unopposedIf 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 presentIf the Recommendation is not approved, the study group chairman, after consultation with the parties concerned may proceed without further consent to a next AAP

10


AAP best practices guidelines

11


ITU-T A.8 – Best practices guidelines

ITU-T has considerable experience with AAPAAP has been very successfulSome issues have arisen in relation with:– transparency– consent– timelines for the AAP– who is allowed to comment– changing from AAP to TAP– the spirit of the LC and AR

12


AAP is handled in a transparent wayResponsibilities of study groups and TSB are clearly understood

Best practices - Transparency

13


Event Action Responsibility (see Note

1)

Comment received by TSB during LC or AR

a) immediate publication at the SG website (TSB is requested to implement a mechanism to draw the attention of the users that comments have been submitted)

TSB

b) confirmation of the reception to the commenter (MS, SM and Associates) TSB

Note 2: comments must only address those parts of texts that were consented

Best practices - Transparency

14


LC Comment resolution

a) consideration of the comments received under the responsibility of the SG chairman SG chairman

b) decision by the SG chairman in consultation with TSB based on assessment under a): SG chairman

-option b1: all comments submitted are typographical, Rec approved [Status: A]

-option b2: some comments are of substance, comment resolution starts [Status: LJ]

Note 3: the TSB should prepare a table “Disposition of comments” to record the different steps (same table format for all SGs)

TSB

c) communication of the decision including the rationale in case of option b2 to all commenters and information on the decision posted at the SG website

TSB

d) in case of option b2, comment resolution is initiated under the direction of the SG chairman. This is accomplished by study group experts involving the commenters with the objective to reach an agreement on one of three options:

- option d1: agreement on a revised text- option d2: comments cannot be resolved- option d3: agreement to not change the LC text

SG chairman

e) decision by the SG chairman on option d1, d2 or d3- in case of option d1, the text is posted for AR [Status: AR]- in case of option d2, the LC text and all comments are sent to the next SG

meeting for resolution and possible approval [Status: SG]- in case of option d3: the LC text is approved [Status: A]

SG chairmanTSBTSB

f) communication of the decision e) to the commenters and information posted at SG website. It includes the reasons for the decision.

TSB

15


AR comment resolution

A) consideration of the comments received under the responsibility of the SG chair SG chairman

B) decision by the SG chair in consultation with TSB based on assessment under A):-option B1: all comments submitted are typographical, Rec. approved

[Status: A]-option B2: some comments are of substance: LC and AR text and all

comments are sent to the next SG meeting for resolution and proposal [Status: SG]

SG chairman

C) communication of the decision B) to the commenters and information posted at SG website. It includes the reasons for the decision.

TSB

Note 1: Generally ‘TSB’ means the Counsellor responsible for the relevant SG

16


AAP is initiated based upon consent at a study group or working party meetingSector Members and Member states can express an opinion regarding consent and decision is based on consensusWhen text of draft Recommendation is available prior to the meeting where AAP is to be initiated, organizations opposed to consent should be encouraged to state their position formally via a contribution received by the TSB prior to the meeting

Best practices - Consent

17


Best practices – Timelines for the AAP

TG120490-00

4(b)

(c)

9 11

(a)

(a) (b)

(a)(b)

SG orWP

meeting(1)

Editedtext

for LC(2)

Director'sannouncement

and postingfor LC

(3)

LC4 weeks

Editedtext

for AR(8)


and postingfor AR

(10)


and posting(5)

SGmeeting

(6)

Director'snotification

and publication(12)

3 weeks

LC: Last callAR: Additional review

Approved

Approved

Approved

Commentresolution

(7)AR

3 weeks

2 weeks(1) 2 weeks(1)4 weeks(1)

5 weeks 9 weeks 12 weeks

(1) Time for Chairman to decide on the course of action

18


Finalized text of Recommendation must be handed to TSB (as one file) by the end of the SG/WP consent meeting.The time, for TSB work, between points (2) - (3), (9) - (10) and (11b) - (5) is 1 week.The “consent” to submit a Recommendation under the AAP process for approval should be reached only for Recommendations that are “REALLY” sufficiently mature. Texts showing only draft “Contents” or “Index”, e.g. leaving further work to be done at Rapporteur meeting level, should not be adopted.When, exceptionally, there is the need for further “editorial” work (after the consent date), the edited text for posting (LC comments period, item (2) of figure should be available to TSB no later than 1 month and a half after the “consent” date.In exceptional cases where it is necessary to apply also the AR period, the edited text for AR period comments has to be available to TSB no later than 9 weeks after the deadline of point (4). (5 weeks needed for comment resolution (1) and preparation of the new edited text, period (7) of figure In case that a Recommendation needs, after the consent date, an “extended” time, longer than 1 month and a half, to be “editorially” revised for approval at any stage (LC, AR or next SG meeting), taking into account the timing shown in figure above the following should be noted:

– The latest date for a text available to TSB, at point (2), should be 8 weeks maximum.

Best practices – Notes to the timelines

19


ITU-T A.8 says only Member States and Sector Members can comment during LC and ARISO, IETF are Sector Membersit is suggested that study group chairman reviews the comments from A.4, A.5 and A.6 other organizations, and feed them informally in the processResolution 31 allows Associates to comment during LC (not AR) but they cannot take part in the decision making process

Best practices – Who is allowed to comment

20


This caused considerable discussion in some study groupsThe debate has been over the process for notifying the request for reconsiderationSee companion presentation

Best practices – Changing AAP to TAP

21


Best practices – The “spirit” of the LC and AR

Not use LC/AR for the delaying or preventing approvalMember participating in development of Recs. should limit comments to correcting errors/ambiguities, not negate previously given consentLC comments to address only new or modified textLC comments not to repeat material already submitted prior to consentOnly note comments on scope and objectives without technical proposals for changesAccept technical changes resulting from fundamental change on scope or purpose of Rec. if there is no objections from any concerned experts Comments should not only indicate the reasons for not approving the text but also the possible changes to facilitate the approval Focus on identification and correction of technical errors. Not encourage comments on style or editorial issues

LC comments proposing changes to clarify, improve the text or correct errors should be introduced only if the text is incorrect or inaccurate or incurs significant risk of misinterpretationComments addressing someone else’s comments should only be submitted after the study group chairman decision to enter the comment resolution processFor AR comments, similar considerations to LC comments applyAdditional Review is not meant as another opportunity to submit LC comments. AR comments to address those parts agreed as outcome of LC comment resolution processWhen comment resolution process fails to produce an agreed text for additional review, consideration at next study group meeting may be based on LC text or a revised text that may be prepared in the meantime

22


AAP database

23


ITU-T A.8 – AAP database

See companion presentation

tutorial for leadership teams of itu-t study groups, tsag, tariff groups and focus groups...

Documents

aap aap

aap slide

leadership teams of

itu t

study group meeting

itut recommendations

director of tsb study

t study groups