INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION RADIOCOMMUNICATION ADVISORY GROUP GENEVA, 23-25 JANUARY 1995 Document RAG95/13-E 13 December 1994 Original: English Chairmen of ITU-R Study Groups 4 and 9 POSSIBLE RESTRUCTURING OF ITU-R QUESTIONS In response to Doc. TSAG/DT/88, "Future reallocation of work between the ITU-R and ITU-T", presented at the joint meeting of RAG/TSAG (April 1994), Working Parties of ITU-R Study Groups 4 and 9 prepared the attached Docs. 9A/TEMP/6(Rev.2) and 4A/TEMP/28. These two documents are submitted for consideration by the Radiocommunication Advisory Group. INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION RADIOCOMMUNICATION STUDY GROUPS Document 9A/TEMP/6(Rev.2)-E 10 November 1994 Original: English only Source:Docs. 9A/4, 9B/7 and 9D/10 Working Party 9A POSSIBLE RESTRUCTURING OF ITU-R QUESTIONS** This document should be submitted to the Chairman of Study Group 9 for further action. 1 Introduction Doc. TSAG/DT/88, "Future reallocation of work between the ITU- R and ITU-T", was presented at the joint meeting of RAG/TSAG (April 1994). It invited the RAG (Radiocommunication Advisory Group) to review the present structure of ITU-R Questions and overall presentation of work. This review may include the possibility of the ITU-R adopting the format of Questions as specified in Section 7 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1 in order to facilitate future reallocation of work between the ITU-R and ITU-T. The ITU Convention provides that the allocation of work between the two Sectors should be kept under constant review by the ITU-R and ITU-T. This point was reiterated in Resolution COM4/9 adopted by the recent Kyoto Plenipotentiary Conference (September - October 1994). Therefore, the reallocation of work between the two Sectors continues to be important for both the ITU-R and ITU-T. On behalf of all other Working Parties of Study Group 9, Working Party 9A examined the measures to improve the process of future reallocation of work between the ITU-R and ITU-T. 2 Comparison of ITU-R Questions and ITU-T Questions The November 1993 Radiocommunication Assembly assigned 413 Questions to nine ITU-R Study Groups. As an average, one ITU-R Study Group has 45.9 Questions. On the other hand, the March 1993 WTSC assigned 284 Questions to 14 ITU-T Study Groups (ITU-T Study Group 9 is excluded, because the WTSC assigned no Question to ITU-T Study Group 9 at that time). As an average, one ITU-T Study Group has 20.3 Questions. A comparison shows that one ITU-R Study Group has 2.3 times more Questions as compared with the ITU-T. In 1990, the ITU-R adopted a new policy that ITU-R Questions should be rather specific. The purpose was to highlight specific Recommendations to be developed, and to speed up the work of preparing draft Recommendations. Generally speaking, this policy has proved very effective. This is reflected in the fact that since 1990, the number of ITU-R Recommendations has significantly increased. Another factor which characterizes the ITU-R work, making ITU- R Questions rather specific, is preparation for the World Radiocommunication Conferences (WRC). A WRC is held once every two years. ITU-R Study Groups have to make preparatory studies on various issues on the agenda of the forthcoming WRC and the results are reported to the WRC through the Conference Preparatory Meeting (CPM). ITU-R Questions dealing with these preparatory studies have to be specific corresponding to the agenda items of the WRC. This aspect is a unique feature of the ITU-R. As far as the ITU-R is concerned, the policy that Questions be rather specific should be maintained. Another difference between the ITU-R and ITU-T Study Groups is that ITU-R Study Groups are mainly radio service oriented, while ITU-T Study Groups are set up on a functional basis. Consequently, generally speaking, an ITU-T Question has many interfaces with other Study Groups. This difference gives a profound impact on the contents of Questions of the two Sectors. 3 Possible common format for ITU-R and ITU-T Questions Without doubt, if ITU-R and ITU-T Questions have a common format, it will facilitate future reallocation of work between the ITU-R and ITU-T. Such common format would facilitate better understanding, by the ITU-D Sector, of ITU-R and ITU-T work. However, this does not lead to a simple and quick conclusion that the ITU-R should adopt the format of Questions as specified in Section 7 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1. Careful considerations will be required before making such a decision. The most important point is the comparison of costs and benefits. The format of Questions as specified in ITU-T Resolution No. 1 is very much detailed and it is not an easy task to convert an existing ITU-R Question into a text compatible with ITU-T Resolution No. 1. The work of converting all the existing numerous ITU-R Questions will require a great deal of effort and resources. Possible benefits may not justify the costs for converting the existing ITU-R Questions. In estimating costs, one should take into account the total number of ITU-R Questions. One idea may be to apply the format of ITU-T Resolution No. 1 only to new and revised ITU-R Questions. This will ease the work of converting all of the existing ITU-R Questions into the new format. However, in this case, two formats will exist in future ITU-R Questions, which may bring about confusion among ITU-R participants. Another idea may be to apply the format in ITU-T Resolution No. 1 only to those ITU-R Questions which have potential interactions with the ITU-T. However, this idea might also bring about confusion among ITU-R participants. It should also be noted that there are several ITU-R Study Groups which do not have interactions with the ITU-T. For them, the current format of ITU-R Questions may be perfectly acceptable. Furthermore, it may be also noted that the current ITU-R format is flexible and appropriate for developing new Questions quickly. It is well suited to the ITU-R Questions which generally seek for specific Recommendations. Other alternative measures to improve the process of future reallocation of work between the ITU-R and ITU-T are discussed in the following sections. 4 Possible alternative measures for improvement At this stage, the following two measures are suggested: a)A procedure should be established in accordance with which the ITU-R Secretariat or the Chairmen of ITU-R Study Groups will provide information on the scope of Questions and the current status of studies. b)Each ITU-R Question should clearly identify other ITU-R, ITU-T and ITU-D Study Groups which are working in closely related areas. The (draft) Question should be sent to these Study Groups for possible review and comment. This kind of procedure has been applied in some cases in the past, but from now on, the procedure should become a routine one. Even though the format is different, ITU experts of other Sectors working in related areas will easily recognize what kind of work and results are anticipated by an ITU-R Question. If any clarification is required, a liaison statement can be sent to, or direct contact can be made with, the relevant ITU-R Study Group. This kind of direct dialogue will greatly facilitate reallocation of work between the Sectors. There are several examples in the past in which bilateral dialogue has successfully resulted in the actual reallocation of work. If this approach is adopted, it seems necessary to add an indent to § 5 of Resolution ITU-R 5 which may read "a Question shall identify relevant ITU Study Groups working in closely related areas, to which the text of (draft) Questions should be sent inviting review". In addition, it may be appropriate to modify Resolution ITU-R 6, "Liaison and collaboration with the ITU-T", so that the above points a) and b) are properly reflected in the Resolution, and extended to the ITU-D. 5 Other considerations Development and approval process for ITU-R Questions is specified in Resolutions ITU-R 1 and ITU-R 5, while development and approval process for ITU-T Questions is specified in Section 7 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1 (Development and approval process for the ITU-D Questions is mainly based on that of the ITU-T). Details of their comparisons are presented in Annex 1. Paragraph 3.2 of Resolution ITU-R 1 allows an administration to submit a draft Question directly to the Director for approval by correspondence. ITU-T Resolution No. 1 does not provide such procedure. For the reasons described in § 4 of Annex 1, the ITU-T procedure seems more appropriate in this case. Therefore, it is suggested to delete "by an administration or" from the second indent of § 3.2 of Resolution ITU-R 1 (see Note by the Chairman of ITU-R SG 9). 6 Summary If the above alternative measures and considerations are acceptable, amendments to Resolutions ITU-R 1, ITU-R 5 and ITU-R 6 will become necessary. Note by the Chairman of ITU-R SG 9 - When this document was submitted to the November 1994 meeting of SG Chairmen and Vice- Chairmen, a suggestion was made that the Director may consult with the Chairman of the relevant SG before sending the draft Question for approval by correspondence. However, the current Resolution ITU- R 1 does not contain such a consultation process, because § 3.4 makes reference to consultation with Study Group Chairmen only concerning to which Study Group the Question should be assigned. If the current provision concerning the direct submission of draft Questions from administration to the Director are to be maintained, it seems necessary that the Chairman of the relevant Study Group confirm, before the draft Question is sent out for approval by correspondence, that the scope of study is clearly defined, constituting a new area not explicitly covered by the existing Questions, and the text meets the requirements of a Question as specified in Resolution ITU-R 5. ANNEX 1 Comparison of ITU-R and ITU-T practices concerning Questions In this Annex, the provisions in Section 7 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1 are compared with the ITU-R counterpart (Resolutions ITU-R 1 and ITU-R 5). 1 Submission of draft Questions In the ITU-T, the deadline for submission of a draft Question to the meeting is two months (see § 1.1 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1, Section 7), which is compared with the seven-day deadline in the ITU-R. In the past, ITU-R meetings could live with a seven-day deadline, but if the requirements on the format of Questions become stringent, it may become necessary to adopt the ITU-T practice. 2 Consensus rule Paragraph 1.6 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1, Section 7, contains an explicit provision that "agreement by a Study Group to submit proposed Questions for approval is achieved by reaching consensus among the members present". In the ITU-R, Study Groups adopt draft Questions on a consensus basis, but there is no such written rule in the ITU-R and a draft Question can be adopted on a majority basis, if necessary. 3 Role of TSAG TSAG shall be made aware of all proposed ITU-T Questions, in order to allow TSAG to consider the possible implications on the work of all ITU-T Study Groups or other groups (see § 1.7). This may reflect the structure of ITU-T Study Groups which were set up on a functional basis. In the ITU-R, the RAG has no role in the approval process of ITU-R Questions. 4 Approval by correspondence In the ITU-T, all proposals of Questions have to be submitted to Study Groups and exceptionally to a WTSC (see § 1.9 and § 1.10). On the contrary, in the ITU-R an administration can submit a draft Question directly to the Director for approval by correspondence (see § 3.2 of Resolution ITU-R 1). There is a possibility that this procedure may create a difficulty, when a proposal is not well documented or has some duplication with the existing Questions. Nowadays, ITU-R meetings take place fairly often. Proposals of Questions can be submitted to any of the working parties, study groups and assemblies. Even if administrations are prohibited to submit proposals directly to the Director, the real adverse impact on administrations will be minimal. For this reason, it seems appropriate to apply the ITU-T practice to the ITU-R. 5 Types of Questions In the ITU-T, Questions are classified into three types: background Question, task-oriented Question designed to lead to a Recommendation, and proposal for a new or revised Manual (see Appendix 1 to Section 7 of ITU-T Resolution No. 1). In the ITU-R, background Question is not defined and Questions should be task- oriented in principle. Preparation of ITU-R Handbooks can be initiated by study groups. INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION RADIOCOMMUNICATION STUDY GROUPS Document 4A/TEMP/28-E 21 November 1994 Original: English only Working Party 4A WP 4A GUIDANCE TO CHAIRMAN OF STUDY GROUP 4 RELATING TO DOC. 9A/TEMP/6(REV.2) Working Party 4A has considered the liaison statement from Working Party 9A on the above topic contained in Doc. 9A/TEMP/11 received on 10 November 1994 and distributed to members as Doc. 4A/34. The consensus view in Working Party 4A is that liaison at Working Party level between Study Group 4 and the appropriate ITU-T Study Groups, which was of variable effectiveness prior to the recent restructuring of the ITU, has improved since that restructuring and is currently achieving its objectives satisfactorily. However, we believe that this improvement has occurred, not because of transfer of work from Study Group 4 to ITU- T Study Groups, but rather because of the focus on inter-sector liaison resulting from the restructuring activities and the formation of the ICG on satellite matters. The close attention to Study Group 4 Questions in the attempt to transfer certain of them, and parts of others, to particular ITU-T Study Groups was, in our view, an exercise of limited effectiveness. It is our opinion that changing the format of Study Group 4 Questions to align them with the format of ITU-T Questions would do little to ensure efficient distribution of FSS-associated work between the Sectors, and would consume effort which could otherwise be more usefully deployed. In the case of topics with which Study Group 4 is concerned and which require both radio and networking expertise for their discharge, we believe effective inter-sector liaison is the only way to ensure that T-Sector work is carried out in the T-Sector, rather than in the R-Sector. To contrive a common format for Questions would be of little help in achieving that aim in our case. In accordance with these views Working Party 4A endorses the suggestions for "alternative measures for improvement" set out in § 4 of Doc. 9A/TEMP/6(Rev.2). We have only two comments: At present we are uncertain of the work areas addressed by each ITU-D Study Group, and hence we would have difficulty in making the appropriate identifications in our Questions. (This comment does not apply in the case of the ITU-T Study Groups.) The Working Party 9A proposal to remove the facility whereby an administration can submit a draft Question to the Director for approval by correspondence, appears to be based on the observation that "Nowadays, ITU-R meetings take place fairly often. Proposals for Questions can be submitted to any of the Working Parties, Study Groups and Assemblies." Whilst this is true, we believe that the decisions by administrations to commence work on a topic are not usually delayed until the relevant Question has been approved; but in an era of biannual WRCs preceded immediately by Assemblies, it seems untimely to close the formal door on the faster route to Question approval. ******