1 / 57

ITU-T’s current situation and its future Presentation by Houlin ZHAO Director, TSB International Telecommunication Union

ITU-T’s current situation and its future Presentation by Houlin ZHAO Director, TSB International Telecommunication Union, Geneva at Informal Consultation meeting Martigny, Switzerland, 27-28 February 2001. Part I: WTSA-2000 review

omer
Download Presentation

ITU-T’s current situation and its future Presentation by Houlin ZHAO Director, TSB International Telecommunication Union

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ITU-T’s current situation and its future Presentation by Houlin ZHAO Director, TSB International Telecommunication Union, Geneva at Informal Consultation meeting Martigny, Switzerland, 27-28 February 2001

  2. Part I: WTSA-2000 review Part II: Review of the results of the 1st Martigny meeting Part III: ITU-T situation and challenges Part IV: ITU Reform discussion Part V: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Structure of this presentation

  3. Director’s reports to WTSA-2000: • - Document 34: Overview, executive summary and future visions • - Document 35: General statistics for 1997-2000 • - Document 36: Report of TSB • - Document 37 + Add.1: Expenditures and budget issue • - Document 119: Projects open to voluntary contributions Part I – Director’s report to WTSA-2000

  4. Approvalof reports of SGs and TSAG for 1997-2000 activities including Recommendations presented to WTSA-2000 for approval; • Approvalof a new set of working methods, including AAP, TAP, new working methods for SSG, EDH, etc. (Res.1, Res. 37, Rec.A.8, Rec. A.9, Res.32); • Establishmentof a new structure, SSG on IMT-2000and beyond (Res.2); • Appointment of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of SGs and TSAG ( Res.35); • Delegation ofmore authority to TSAG(Res.22); • Encouragement of reform discussions(Res.33, Res.36); • Regional presence(Res.17); • Voluntary contributions (Res. 34); • Associates(Res.31). Part I – Main results of WTSA-2000

  5. Part I - Approval of new and revised Recommendations - Sequence of events (TAP)

  6. 752 Recommendations (revised or new) approved (including WTSA-2000 approval); • Except for policy and regulatory, administrative-related texts, only 15 technical texts were delayed by one SG level meeting, K.46, K.47 (SG 5); Q.2941, X.641 (SG 7); T.37/Amd.1, T.180 (SG 8); J.87, J.94, J.116, J.142 (SG 9); Q.2111 (SG11); G.691 (SG 15); G.729 Annex C, H.248, H.332 (SG 16); • Delay of approval for technical reasons: patent issues, alignment with IETF, or further improvement requested; • No single technical text was stopped by Administrations, neither by “small” company, nor by developing countries. Part I – Approval of ITU-T Recommendations during 1997-2000

  7. (a) 3 weeks 4 weeks LC (b) SG Director’s Meeting Announcement (c) and Posting SG or Edited Director’s WP Text Announcement for LC and Posting Meeting 3 weeks (b) for LC AR (a) (b) Approved (a) Comment Director’s Resolution Announcement Director’s Edited and Posting Notification Text for AR Available LC: Last Call AR: Additional Review Part I – AAP Sequence of Events

  8. Very fast: Approval if no comments within 4 weeks of “Last Call” • Very open: Web consultation • Member States and Sector Members comment on equal basis • No translation required during the “Last Call” • No consultation with Member States requested before “Last Call”. • ITU-T has two tools to approve Recommendations of different categories (TAP and AAP) Part I – AAP advantages

  9. consultation electronically to the maximum extent possible, teleconferences as much as possible • paper copies only on request • flexibility to arrange meetings, announce physical meetings with aminimum of one month’s notice through e-mail • input documents accepted five working days prior to SG/WP level meeting • “normative technical specifications” or “interim Recommendations”, under investigation (lesser status than Recommendations) Part I – Recommendation A.9: Provisional working procedures for IMT-2000 and beyond

  10. 1) Sector Members’ delegates appointed at several key positions: • - Vice Chairmen of the Assembly • - Chairmen of Committees 3, 4, 5 and 6 • All working methods AAP, EDH, etc. were approved without difficulties • Some discussions on Rec. A.9 (new) for Special Study Group (SSG) on“IMT-2000 and Beyond” (Project-oriented SG) • 14 out of 15 Chairmen appointed are from Sector Members • Encourage reform discussions • Except voting by Sector Members, all major requests from Sector Members were met • Some different opinions at WTSA-2000, unavoidable every four years. Part I – A good meeting for Sector Members

  11. First Study Group Chairmen meeting in November 2000: • - Agreement on AAP procedures • - Agreement on meeting schedule for 2001-2004 • - Agreement on business management details (meeting efficiency, new initiatives, regional activities, promotion) • First SSG meeting in December 2000 • AAP launched on 29 January 2001 - Logistic preparation by TSB and other ITU services - E-mail contacts provided by Members: 66 replies by 15 January - no reply from many active Members (96 replies by 15 February) - Every 2 weeks an AAP Circular to be issued • ITU-T Reform - discussed at the Chairmen’s meeting - prepare a second Martigny meeting • Promotion: to organize SG meetings in the region, and seminars/workshops on various subjects Part I – Main TSB actions after WTSA

  12.  Outputs were sent, as an attachment to the Director’s Report to the Chairmen meeting and to the TSAG meeting in May 2000, to the Council-2000, and to the WTSA-2000;  Input and output documents were on the website immediately after the meeting;  Very well received by ITU-T Members;  Very positive in guiding and assisting the ITU Reform on standardization;  Contributed to the success of WTSA-2000;  Good channel maintained between the Group and the TSB. Part II – Review of the results of the 1st Martigny meeting

  13. “Consensus views” review  Recognition of ITU-T “the only truly global organization exclusively for telecommunications”, and “the important intergovernmental role” were highly appreciated;  Clear separation between technical work and regulatory/policy related work: AAP/TAP, equal voice;  Work program: optical, ATM, IP, wireless, interconnectivity, interoperability, etc.: accepted;  Cooperation with IETF, ATM Forum, 3GPPs, etc.: continued and enforced;  ITU-T work should not be tied to the four-year cycle of WTSA: applied;  Flexibility to introduce a “forum” model within ITU-T: under study. Personally, I support this proposal from the TSAG meeting in April 1999; Part II – Review of the results of the 1st Martigny meeting

  14.  Increase use of EDH: enforced;  Reduce reliance on face-to-face meeting: I pushed it hard, but the SG Chairmen resisted because of their concern about the decreasing participation of delegates;  Other means to reduce cost: AAP without translation, SG meeting opening plenary without interpretation.  Concrete proposals from the participants and from the second document “Improvement of working structure and implementation path” did not receive sufficient discussion. No unanimous agreements were reached at the 1st Martigny meeting. Consequently, no support from the TSAG and WTSA. Further study is needed. Those proposals include: to abandon SG structure, to have WTSA every two years, to establish a new product of “technical specification”, etc. Part II – Review of the results of the 1st Martigny meeting

  15. Extract from presentation to the first Martigny meeting • Rapid development of new technology and convergence of services • Rapid change of telecommunication environment: liberalization, globalization • Many standardization bodiesFora/consortia; regional bodies, IETF, 3GPPs, etc. • De-facto standards by SDOs/companies • Limited resources, limited budget • Poor “classic” image of ITU-T: bureaucratic, very slow, and • Companies restructuring and re-engineering Part III – Challenges (threats) to ITU-T

  16. Note: 1. Approx. 300 texts per year during 1997-2000 2. About 180 common texts between ITU-T and ISO/IEC JTC 1 3. ITU-T publishes handbooks and Operational Bulletin Part III – Recommendations in force

  17. 1999 - Best selling texts(in the order of sales number): H.323 H.225.0 G.723.1 G.703 G.711 V.90 Q.931 V.34 E.164 M.600 H.323 Annex DX.208 X.209 G.704 H.245 X.680 X.25 X.690G.729 H.263 G.726 T.30 T.6 T.4 2000 - Best selling texts(in the order of sales number): H.323 (09/99) G.703 G.723.1 Q.931 G.711 X.690 G.704 G.723 Annex A+disk V.90 E.164 X.680 H.323 (02/98) G.692 H.263 G.729 G.826 G.957 H.225.0 G.729 Annex A+disk V.34 Part III – Best Sellers

  18. Part III – Approval and publication time ofRecommendations

  19. Part III – Rec. A.4, A.5 and A.6 relationship

  20.  All A.5 and A.6 relationships established after 10/99; no delay  ITU-T/IETF: - Workshop on ENUM, IP-related numbering and routing, multimedia, etc. - Joint management team (SG Chairs/Area Directors) meeting, London, August 2001  MoU with ICANN/IETF/W3C/ETSI on PSO, July 1999  MoU with ISO/IEC/UN/ECE on E-business, March 2000  MoU with ETSI on cooperation, June 2000  Provide permissions to IETF, 3GPPs to post some ITU-T documents on their Website for free consultation  to attend Joint President Cooperation Group (JPCG) of ISO/IEC for cooperation  strengthen cooperation, avoid duplication. Part III – Cooperation with other SDOs

  21. Note – About 100 Sector Members had never participated in ITU-T meetings, and had never requested documents in any form. Part III – ITU-T Members

  22. Part III – Request of documents by Sector Members

  23. Note – Among meeting attendees: 56% requested all documents 20% requested no documents 12% use Web only Part III – Attendance in 1998-2000

  24. In Geneva: 07/98 – 08/2000 6 091 • In Geneva : 11/96 – 06/98 6 053 • Outside Geneva: 11/96 - 08/2000 3 208 • WTSA-2000: 623 Total: 15 975 Part III – Participation statistics 1997-2000(SG/WP level meetings)

  25. (Note – Cisco: 13) Part III – Top Members participation (07/98-08/00)

  26. Part III – Structure of the entire ITU-T Budgetwithin the ITU budget in 2000-2001

  27. Part III – Total language cost in the entire ITU-T budget

  28. Part III – Statement of ITU-T Sector Members’ contributions, sales, UIFN versus entire ITU-T budget for 2000-2001

  29. Part III – ITU Sector Members’ financial contributions

  30. Note: Figures are in Swiss Francs Part III – ITU sales by Sector

  31. Part III – ITU-T on line subscriptions (06/99-06/00)

  32. Sector Member contribution: on cost-recovery, voluntary, a minimum of½ unit is required for ITU-T. • Sector Member contribution unit price is 1/5 of the Member States unit • prices, currently, about 40,000 US $/unit,½ unit: i.e. 20,000 US$. • In the past, the majority paid a minimum of ½ unit with exception of • 35 cases: 9x3 units, 1x2½ units, 4x2 units, 1x1½ unit, and 20x1 units. • In 2001: 17 out of 35 will reduce their contributions (mainly from 3 or 2 units • to ½ or 1 unit), a total reduction of 23 units is counted. (Some of them weredue to merging or splitting of companies.) • 5.Some members provide voluntary contributions (cash), andinvite ITU-T meetings. Part III – Sector Members’ contributions

  33. Part III – Sector Members’ Voluntary Contributions

  34. IETF has no membership, but charge participation fee; the others arebudgeted through national members/partners SDOs. Part III – Annual fees (Companies)

  35. (Some SDOs receive secretariat support from their members; such expenditures are not counted in the budget.) Part III – Company’s dues to SDOs

  36. 1. A big vendor company has to follow 120-180 SDOs, while a big operator • has to follow 40-80 SDOs: very expensive, very exhaustive. • 2. In addition to the normal membership fee contributions, sponsorshipto support SDO’s activities could be a very heavy financial engagement,and a hidden financial support to some SDOs included in hotel roomcharge to the participants, etc. • 3. Company has its own financial problems. Part III – Problems for a big company

  37. Intergovernment ITU-T NGOsISO,IEC,IEEE, ETSI, ECMA Task Force IETF Forums & Consortia 3GPP3GPP2ATMFW3C Part III – Organization Types

  38. International legal ReferencesITU-T (Telecom + IT)ISO (IT + )IEC (Electronic + ) Market IETF (IP) 3GPP (3G) 3GPP2 (3G) ATMF (ATM) W3C (WWW) IEEE (LAN, …) Region recognized ETSI (Telecom + IT) Part III – User categories

  39. ITU needs reform • Council’s WGR met three times: December 1999, April 2000 and November 2000. • AHG 1 on Standardization: 1st meeting in July/August 2000 - “from scratch” approach - three models: UK, Genuity, Canada - Inside ITU-T (Genuity/Canada) or outside ITU-T (UK)? - 16 criteria for an “ideal entity” - key-points identified, not discussed - useful to WTSA-2000 (already reported to the Martigny group in August 2000) 2nd meeting in October/November 2000 (after WTSA-2000) - some key issues discussed, such as voting, budget, outputs - no agreements reached on key issues - first time a schedule: three steps from now till 2002+ with an entity started after PP-02 Part IV – ITU Reform

  40. 3rd meeting in January 2001 • key issues: • - membership obligations and responsibilities • - financing • - output • - decision-making process • - impact on ITU/ITU-T • No consensus had been reached on those items to establish ITU-TF • - propose PP-02 to establish a pilot forum in ITU-T • - Deutsche Telekom proposals for ITU-TF • - modified “stepped approach” to reflect the request of pilot forum in ITU-T after PP-02, and further decision by WTSA-2004. • AHG 1 Conclusion (see its report) • WGR and AHG 1: no agreement on “ITU Standard Forum” • AHG 1: no consensus reached • A pilot Forum in ITU-T might be useful • A number of participants consider WTSA-2000 essentially modified • ITU-T, wait further to see the results. Part IV – ITU Reform

  41. Next events: • - TSAG meeting: 19-23 March 2001 • - 4th meeting of WGR in Brazil: 2-6 April 2001 • - ITU Council meeting: 18-29 June 2001 • My observations • - Very good spirit to push “reform” • - very useful to contribute to the success of WTSA-2000 • - somehow lack of knowledge of ITU/ITU-T reality • - two more years until PP-02 (too long to wait for) • - push ITU-T reform through TSAG and SG management team before PP-02 Part IV – ITU Reform

  42. Q.1: ITU/ITU-T is too slow A.1: No, it is not. As a matter of fact, with TAP, ITU-T can approve its Recommendations in 9 months, while AAP can approve technical Recommendations in less than 2 months. Such a speedy procedure can challenge any SDO. Q.2: ITU spent a lot of money on languages; this is not wanted by industry. A.2: According to the statistics, 1/3 of the entire ITU-T budget is spent on languages. However, this expenditure is covered by the ITU budget, noting that the Sector Members’ contributions correspond to 1/3 of the entire ITU-T budget. Some saving measures taken:  ITU-T has never provided interpretation for any meeting lower than SG level (except for SG 3) since 1997;  For SGs, only the closing plenary has interpretation as from 2001; For TSAG, SG 3, and closing plenaries of SGs, interpretation will not be provided for those languages represented by less than 3 delegates. (For example, 2 TSAG meetings in 1999 did not have Chinese interpretation, although the Chinese delegation was present.) Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

  43.  SG meetings outside Geneva did not have interpretation;  Only those draft texts identified for approval by SG meeting have been translated. The other documents, including meeting reports, normal contributions, delayed contributions, not stable draft Recommendations, etc. were not translated;  Some ITU-T Recommendations were published in English only, e.g. X-series proformas;  Software part of Recommendations remain in the original language only;  AAP does not require texts translated into other languages;  All efforts will be made to further save money. Q.3: ITU/ITU-T has no place for different technical solutions. A.3: It is ITU-T’s goal to establish single global standards. However, there are many cases where ITU-T accommodates different technical solutions, such as PCM (two systems), Videotex (4 systems), etc. IMT-2000 Radio access has five options. Furthermore, ITU-T Recommendations often provide “mandatory” and “optional” facilities. Therefore, possibility exists. Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

  44. Q.4: Industry does want power, but never succeeded. A.4: How is “power” defined? True, at PP, at Council, industry has no seats. However, ITU has been working very hard to improve the situation, including recognizing a need to treat “Sector Members” as partners, using the expression “working together” for developing technical Recommendations, etc. As far as standardization is concerned, industry has enjoyed a lot of power, including the power to hold a text at any time before approval so that finally, Member States have nothing to approve. The new AAP gives Member States and Sector Members equal rights to comment on the draft texts during “Last Call”. PP-98 Res. 82, Convention 246A and 246B clearly stated that “for technical Recommendations, formal consultation of Member States not required and that AAP…. may be approved by Member States and Sector Members, acting together…” “Voting” should not be considered the only means to judge “Power”. On the other hand, power and dues are closely related. A fundamental change to the whole ITU structure and its mandate will be unavoidable if “voting by Sector Members” is accepted. Furthermore, there are many voting arrangements: weighted voting, equal voting, voting by simple majority, voting by Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

  45. absolute majority, etc. Another point: who has right to vote? Individual person (participant)? Per delegation? Per membership? Per country? Some more: secret voting? Voting by hand? Voting by letter ballot? More time is needed to work on this issue.Q.5: “Voting” is a key element for any SDO. A.5: Although all SDOs have “voting” procedures, “consensus” is always sought in most cases to approve their standards. To use “voting” for technical standards represents a failure rather than a success. No SDO considers “voting” as their key to success. ITU also has voting procedures. ITU-T has never had a case of approving Recommendations by vote. “Voting” is a tool never-used (power) by Member States. Although Sector Members cannot vote directly, they can vote through their national Administrations. Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

  46. Q.6: Some Sector Members have become a multi-national force rather than a national entity. How can ITU adapt to this development? A.6: This is a Question for further study. It is noted that a few big operators/ manufacturers lead the world markets, while in most countries, there are no major manufacturers and their operators carry out their activities within their national/regional territories. Coordination for multinational companies at national/international levels will have to be reviewed. Q.7: Appointment of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of SGs were still controlled by Member States, not appreciated by Sector Members. A.7: For the first time in ITU-T, I introduced a transparent process to appoint Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of SGs: had discussions in TSAG, issued a Circular-letter to invite Members to propose candidates, several round discussions with Members before the WTSA, and with Heads of delegations during WTSA. During the whole process, the competence was always at the first place for consultations. The result is: 14 out 15 Chairmen of SGs are from Sector Members and none from developing countries. There are many things to be improved in the process. More transparency will be introduced in the future. Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

  47. Q.8: Can ITU provide its Recommendations free of charge? A.8: No. It is not possible under the current circumstances. The sale represents a 7-8% of the ITU Budget. ITU cannot afford to lose this revenue. Externally, except IETF and a very few SDOs where their budget system is based on free deliveries, no SDOs can afford such a loss. In their budget, the sales represent 7-8% for ETSI, 30% for ISO and IEC, etc. Starting from January 2001, a trial of 3 free downloads of ITU products per person will be welcomed by students, researchers, ITU experts, and the public. A free web access to ITU official products will be provided to each ITU member (not “Associates”). Other advantages include special fees for universities, for the LDCs, etc. ITU’s sales policy will be further reviewed. It is interesting to note that many new players have disappeared after a free service for a short period. Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

  48. Q.9: ITU has too many face-to-face meetings, and it relays on their meetings only. A.9: Yes, for ITU-T, meetings are very important. All important decisions including approval of Recommendations are made at the meetings. However, for many years, ITU-T also uses electronic means, e-mail consultations, etc. There is a lot of progress, for example, all documents (Circular-letters, Collective-letters, reports, contributions, liaison statements, temporary documents, etc.), all Recommendations, Resolutions are available on web; Reflectors are provided for SG/WP/ Rapporteurs to conduct their work on a permanent basis; submission documents by several electric means (web, ftp, e-mail, etc.) are arranged. AAP procedures are conducted by e-mail only; TDs available on web the next day, pre-published Recommendations available in a couple of days after its approval; on-line subscriptions, electronic bookshop, various TSB database; ITU-T home page has a lot of information free to ITU-T Members; paperless meeting for some SGs already exist; LAN connection in the ITU meeting rooms; TSAG/WP3 dedicated to EDH; WTSA-2000 encouraged EDH; etc.

  49. Q.10: ITU is an intergovernmental organization. Engineers/users, particularly young people, stay far away from ITU. A.10: A lot of efforts has been made to provide an easy access and a friendly environment for new comers. For example, TSB has recently prepared a “guideline for new comers”. TSB staff will be pleased to assist new comers for any enquiry. Actions to promote ITU in the circle of young people are at the top of the agenda. Tutorial sessions/workshops/ seminars on ITU/ITU-T environment will be organized in the market. ITU will do its best to attract young people and new comers.

  50. Q.11: How do you see the future of IETF, 3GPPs and other SDOs? A.11: ITU has a lot of things to learn from them. ITU should not duplicate its work. ITU should continue to cooperate with them and other SDOs. A problem of “surviving” is common to all SDOs, including ITU-T. Some interesting points to note: - for example, in IETF’s case, everything is open and free on web, and there is almost no decision on approval of RFCs during the IETF General Assembly (GA), why are there always 2000-3500 participants for each GA, three times a year? Can they continue their working methods like this? - for 3GPPs, budget and meeting expenditures become more and more troublesome. I sincerely hope that both of them will keep their momentum and they will find ways to go forward. Part V – Frequently Asked Questions

More Related