ITU-T Study Group Restructuring

1. ITU-T Study Group Restructuring J. MacFie Tel. +1 613-765-6641 Fax +1 613-763-2697 Email jmacfie@nortelnetworks.com

2. Outline • Why look at the ITU-T SG structure? • Developing an ITU-T SG structure proposal • start from generic elements of a prototypical network • consolidation considerations • positioning ITU-T for the future • fold like areas together • horizontal vs. vertical activities • participation levels: critical mass; maximum size • need to take a macro view, show flexibility • Hierarchy, Roles, Meetings • no need for change • Conclusions • Next Steps GSC-8, OTTAWA

3. Why look at the ITU-T SG structure? • Diffusion of work across multiple SGs impacts effectiveness • difficult for members to optimally allocate resources, participants may need to attend multiple SGs to cover a topic • declining participation levels with industry downturn • difficult for new participants to determine where to go • difficult for external bodies to identify with whom to interact • high volume of Liaisons between SGs may delay progress, consumes resources • Need to position ITU-T as forward looking, efficient • a well-thought-out SG structure will help address perception issues, improve efficiency and effectiveness • need to stimulate a resurgence of interest in ITU: make it attractive to move under the ITU-T umbrella • within TSAG’s mandate and role: confirmed at PP-02 GSC-8, OTTAWA

4. In developing a proposal, what should be the starting point? • Performance • Applications and Services incl. TV, Sound, MM • Service Signalling • Transport • Telecommunication management & operations • Tools and Methods • Mobility of Applications and Terminals • Security • Disaster Relief • Regulatory Aspects • TSAG These are the generic elements of a prototypical telecommunications network. GSC-8, OTTAWA

5. Consolidation Considerations I • Fold like areas together • competing interests: keep together to manage as a package • fold general software aspects into application architecture • combine architecture for lower layers with optical and other transport networks • Some activities are “horizontal”, others “vertical” • keep like together, don’t mix and match • vertical (focus is on one area): • Applications and services • Service signalling • Transport • Mobile Telecommunications • horizontal (cut across multiple areas): • Performance • Tools and methods • Telecommunication management and operations • Security • Disaster relief GSC-8, OTTAWA

6. Consolidation Considerations II • Need to clearly position ITU for the future • include study on “next generation” in each category • need right structure as basis for promotion as future-oriented • cannot afford redundant or divergent activities • Participation levels • over time, some SGs have grown large, others have become small • need to achieve a better balance of participation levels • Regulatory matters (SG 3): no changes proposed • MSs may wish to make changes within a new SG structure • TSAG provides a valuable and useful function • no changes are proposed GSC-8, OTTAWA

7. Consolidation Considerations III • SGs need critical mass to be a “going concern”: • need at least 150 participants for: • adequate diversity of interests and a challenging, interesting, cross-fertilized and sizeable work program • an adequate talent pool for leaders: Rapporteurs, WP Chairmen • legitimacy in representing the ITU-T to external organizations • SGs need to avoid becoming large and unwieldy: • maximum of about 350-400 participants • Macro view, flexibility: • keep a macro view: look after the forest, not just the trees • be reasonably flexible in groupings: activities that are not closely related can still run independently within one SG • hosting of a sub-group outside Geneva remains manageable and should be encouraged • consolidation may reduce TSB overhead of Collective Letters, Liaisons, etc.: some economies of scale may be possible GSC-8, OTTAWA

8. Are the current hierarchy and responsibilities appropriate? Study Groups high level management formal (official) meetings Working Parties manage the technical work formal (official) meetings Rapporteur Groups do the technical work informal meetings Is meeting frequency appropriate? Type Level Frequency Duration (months) (days) Face-to-face SG 8 1-2 Face-to-face WP 4-8 1-2 Face-to-face RG as req’d 2-5 (+/-)or electronic WPs meet when SG meets. Rapporteur Groups meet when WPs meet. Rapporteur Groups may hold additional meetings as required. SGs, WPs, RGs: Hierarchy, Roles, Meetings • Current three level hierarchy and roles fit the needs • Meeting frequency and duration are appropriate • No need seen for lengthy debate on these matters GSC-8, OTTAWA

9. Conclusions • Need to look at ITU-T SG structure to: • address negative impacts of diffusion of work • position ITU-T as forward looking, efficient • Structure of ITU-T SGs: • should be firmly based on generic elements of a prototypical telecommunications network • should contribute strongly to positioning ITU-T as forward looking on converged technologies and networks • distinct from maintenance of legacy and historical aspects • clear domains for various facets of NGN work • should pass multiple reasonableness and consistency tests • critical mass, reasonable maximum size • obviate need to designate “lead SGs”, reduce coord effort • Leave further details to SG leadership • i.e., WPs, Rapporteur Groups, etc., just as in the past GSC-8, OTTAWA

10. Next Steps • TSAG Feb 2003: agreed on need, establish principles, mandate a group to progress the topic • Correspondence Group (Mar - Nov 2003) • Face to face meeting (October 2003) • TSAG Nov 2003: agree target SG structure for next Study Period • current SGs: apply in development of new/revised Questions • TSAG Jun 2004: finalize SG structure and Questions for WTSA-2004 • Sep 2004: WTSA-2004 endorsement GSC-8, OTTAWA