Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T Recommendations ITU-T A.8 (10/2008)

1. Alternative approval process (AAP) for ITU-T RecommendationsITU-T A.8 (10/2008) Georges Sebek, ITU/TSB Geneva, 15-16 December 2008

2. Outline • Approval process description • AAP best practices guidelines • AAP database

3. Approval process description

4. 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 process

5. ITU-T A.8 – Process overview Text subject toadjustment Text review Study groupchairman action

6. 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 meeting

7. 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 meeting

8. 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 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 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 AAP

10. AAP best practices guidelines

11. ITU-T A.8 – Best practices guidelines • ITU-T has considerable experience with AAP • AAP has been very successful • Some 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. Best practices - Transparency • AAP is handled in a transparent way • Responsibilities of study groups and TSB are clearly understood

13. Best practices - Transparency

16. Best practices - Consent • AAP is initiated based upon consent at a study group or working party meeting • Sector Members and Member states can express an opinion regarding consent and decision is based on consensus • When 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

17. Best practices – Timelines for the AAP

18. Best practices – Notes to the timelines • 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.

19. Best practices – Who is allowed to comment • ITU-T A.8 says only Member States and Sector Members can comment during LC and AR • ISO, IETF are Sector Members • it 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 process • Resolution 31 allows Associates to comment during LC (not AR) but they cannot take part in the decision making process

20. Best practices – Changing AAP to TAP • This caused considerable discussion in some study groups • The debate has been over the process for notifying the request for reconsideration • See companion presentation

21. Best practices – The “spirit” of the LC and AR Not use LC/AR for the delaying or preventing approval Member participating in development of Recs. should limit comments to correcting errors/ambiguities, not negate previously given consent LC comments to address only new or modified text LC comments not to repeat material already submitted prior to consent Only note comments on scope and objectives without technical proposals for changes Accept 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 misinterpretation Comments addressing someone else’s comments should only be submitted after the study group chairman decision to enter the comment resolution process For AR comments, similar considerations to LC comments apply Additional Review is not meant as another opportunity to submit LC comments. AR comments to address those parts agreed as outcome of LC comment resolution process When 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