TSB 1 ITU-Ts current situation and its future Presentation by Houlin ZHAO Director, TSB International Telecommunication Union, Geneva at Informal Consultation

1

TSB

ITU-T’s current situation and its future

Presentation by

Houlin ZHAODirector, TSB

International Telecommunication Union, Geneva

at

Informal Consultation meeting

Martigny, Switzerland, 27-28 February 2001

2

TSB

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

TSB

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

TSB

Approval of reports of SGs and TSAG for 1997-2000 activities including Recommendations presented to WTSA-2000 for approval;

Approval of 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);

Establishment of a new structure, SSG on IMT-2000 and beyond (Res.2);

Appointment of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of SGs and TSAG ( Res.35);

Delegation of more 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

TSB

3 months minimum

1 month minimum

4 weeks

SG or WPmeeting

SG or WPdetermination

Chairman'srequest

Edited textavailable

Consultation period

Director'sannouncement

Director's request

Textdistributed

Director'snotification

Deadline forMember States' replies

SGdecision

SGmeeting

7 working days

maximum

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

6

TSB

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

TSB

Approved

Director’s Notification

SG or WP

Meeting

Edited Text

for LC

Director’s Announcement

and Posting for LC

(a)

(b)

(c)

Comment Resolution

Edited Text

Available


and Posting

SG Meeting

(a)

(a)

(b)


and Posting for AR

(b)

3 weeks

4 weeks LC

3 weeks AR

LC: Last Call AR: Additional Review

Part I – AAP Sequence of Events

8

TSB

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

TSB

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 a minimum 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

TSB

1) Sector Members’ delegates appointed at several key positions:- Vice Chairmen of the Assembly- Chairmen of Committees 3, 4, 5 and 6

2) All working methods AAP, EDH, etc. were approved without difficulties

3) Some discussions on Rec. A.9 (new) for Special Study Group (SSG) on“IMT-2000 and Beyond” (Project-oriented SG)

4) 14 out of 15 Chairmen appointed are from Sector Members

5) Encourage reform discussions

6) Except voting by Sector Members, all major requests from Sector Members were met

7) Some different opinions at WTSA-2000, unavoidable every four years.

Part I – A good meeting for Sector Members

11

TSB

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

TSB

Outputs were sent, as an attachment to the Director’s Report to theChairmen meeting and to the TSAG meeting in May 2000, to theCouncil-2000, and to the WTSA-2000;

Input and output documents were on the website immediately after themeeting;

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

TSB

“Consensus views” review

Recognition of ITU-T “the only truly global organization exclusively fortelecommunications”, and “the important intergovernmental role” werehighly appreciated;

Clear separation between technical work and regulatory/policy relatedwork: 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;


14

TSB

Increase use of EDH: enforced;

Reduce reliance on face-to-face meeting: I pushed it hard, but theSG Chairmen resisted because of their concern about the decreasing

participation of delegates;

Other means to reduce cost: AAP without translation, SG meetingopening 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.


15

TSB

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

TSBPart III – Recommendations in force

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

1981-1984

1985-1988

1989-1992

1997-2000

Recommendations in force by the end of the period

1,280 1,600 1,897 2,625

Total pages by theend of the period

11,600(Red

Books)

18,000(Blue

Books)

26,000 76,180

17

TSB

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 D

X.208 X.209 G.704 H.245 X.680 X.25 X.690

G.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

TSB

before 1988 1989-1993 1993-1996 1997-2000 2001-2004

Approval time

4 years

2 years

18 months

9 months (exceptional

case: 5 months)

2-9

months

Publication time

2-4 years

2 years

1-1.5 year

6-12

months

3-9 months

Notes: 1. Pre-published Recommendations, available on ITU-T Website, from a few days

to four weeks after approval of the text. 2. Recs in force, pre-published, superseded/obsolete: available on ITU-T Website. 3. Forms of publication: paper, CD-ROM, electronic bookshop, online, etc.

4. FREE ONLINE ACCESS SINCE JANUARY 2001 (one free access per member, 3 free downloads for public) 5. “Approval time” counted between “determination/consent” and final approval

Part III – Approval and publication time ofRecommendations

19

TSB

A.4(Communication with

Forum)

A.5 (Organizations to be referenced in ITU-T Recommendations)

A.6(SDOs to cooperate with)

ATM-F ARIB ARIB

BINTERMS ATM Forum T1

DSL Forum T1 ECMA

EWOS (Open Systems) ECMA ETSI

FRF (Frame Relay) ETSI JCTEA (Japan Cable Television Engineering Association)

IMTC JCTEA (Japan Cable Television Engineering Association)

IEEE

MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) Forum

IEEE SCTE (Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers)

MSF (Multi Switching Forum) ISOC/IETF TIA

TM Forum (Tele Management Forum)

SCTE (Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers)

TTC

OMG (Object Management Group) TIA

TINA-C (Telecom Information Networking Architecture)

TTC

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

20

TSB

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 documentson their Website for free consultation

to attend Joint President Cooperation Group (JPCG) of ISO/IEC forcooperation

strengthen cooperation, avoid duplication.

Part III – Cooperation with other SDOs

21

TSB

01/2001 01/2000 difference

Administrations

189 189 -

ROAs 168 161 + 7

SIOs 229 189 +38

Associates 7 - + 7

Others 42 40 + 2

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

TSBPart III – Request of documents by Sector Members

2%

2%

2%

46%

39% 9%

1 Study Group

2 Study Groups

3 Study Groups

more than 3 SGs

zero SG

Web only

23

TSBPart III – Attendance in 1998-2000

Note – Among meeting attendees: 56% requested all documents20% requested no documents12% use Web only

16%

12%

25%

1%

46%

in 1 Study Group

in 2 Study Groups

in 3 Study Groups

in the TSAG only

in more than 3 Study Groups

24

TSB

In Geneva: 07/98 – 08/2000 6 091

Number of Members

Number of delegates

Administrations 96 2 208

ROAs 87 1 783

SIOs 167 1 875

Satellite Organizations

3 41

Others

Total 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

TSB

Administrations (96/2208)

ROAs (87/1783) SIOs (167/1875)

U.S.A. 342 NTT 188 Lucent 166+58 +

China 232 FT 184 Ericsson 147+5+

Germany 187 BT 148 Siemens 136+17+

France 106

DT 134 Nortel 91+51+

Russia 99 ATT 77 Alcatel 35+23+40+18+

U.K. 95 KDDI 69 CSELT 69

Canada 63 Telecom Italia 65 NEC 47

Japan 63 Swisscom 65 Nokia 46

India 62 KT 59 Fujitsu 42

Ukraine 58 Telenor 58 Telecordia 36

Italy 56 Royal KPN 58 Motorola 27+8

Syria 53 Telia 46 OKI 32

Korea 50 Telekom Austria 37 ETRI 32

Total: 1466 (66%)

Total: 1188 (67%)

Total: 1126 (60%)

Part III – Top Members participation (07/98-08/00)

(Note – Cisco: 13)

26

TSBPart III – Structure of the entire ITU-T Budgetwithin the ITU budget in 2000-2001

Entire ITU-T Budget covers three parts:

TSB level Budget: 29 398 000 CHF

Document cost invoiced by General Secretariat: 15 172 000 CHF

Centralized ITU administr. & support services: 36 794 000 CHF

Rest of ITU Budget: 251 257 000 CHF

ITU Budget: 332 621 000 CHF

9%

5%

11%

75%

27

TSBPart III – Total language cost in the entire ITU-T budget

5%

14%

8%

5%68%

Interpretation

Translation

Typing pool

Edition

Other cost

28

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

Entire ITU-T budget : 81 364 000 CHF

Sector Members' contributions: 23 640 000 CHF

Sales of ITU-T publications: 14 158 000 CHF

UIFN:1 500 000 CHF

2%

17%

29%

29

TSBPart III – ITU Sector Members’ financial contributions

1996-1997 1998-1999 2000-2001

RadiocommunicationSector

TelecommunicationDevelopment Sector

TelecommunicationStandardization Sector

ITU-T SM contributionsover the budgetedforecast

302826242220181614121086420

Millions CHF

30

TSB

0

2'000'000

4'000'000

6'000'000

8'000'000

10'000'000

12'000'000

14'000'000

16'000'000

1996-1997 1998-1999 2000-2001

General Secretariat

TelecommunicationDevelopment Sector

Radiocommunication Sector

TelecommunicationStandardization Sector

Part III – ITU sales by Sector

Note: Figures are in Swiss Francs

31

TSBPart III – ITU-T on line subscriptions (06/99-06/00)

319

121

114

16

Non Members 1,247,256 CHF

Multi-user Members 1,464,804 CHF

Single-user Members 324,790 CHF

Administrations & Regulatory Bodies 43,448 CHF

Total contracts: 570

Total revenue: 3,080,298 CHF

32

TSB

1. Sector Member contribution: on cost-recovery, voluntary, a minimum of½ unit is required for ITU-T.

2. Sector Member contribution unit price is 1/5 of the Member States unitprices, currently, about 40,000 US $/unit, ½ unit: i.e. 20,000 US$.

3. In the past, the majority paid a minimum of ½ unit with exception of35 cases: 9x3 units, 1x2½ units, 4x2 units, 1x1½ unit, and 20x1 units.

4. In 2001: 17 out of 35 will reduce their contributions (mainly from 3 or 2 unitsto 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

TSB

Contributor Amount received

Year

T-NovaDeutsche Telekom

155 000 CHF 2000

Inmarsat 8 000 US $ 2000British Telecom

94 500 CHF 2000

Announced amount

T-NovaDeutsche Telekom

155 000 CHF 2001

British Telecom

94 500 CHF 2001

Nortel NetworksPart III – Sector Members’ Voluntary Contributions

34

TSB

IETF has no membership, but charge participation fee; the others arebudgeted through national members/partners SDOs.

Part III – Annual fees (Companies)

0

50000

100000

150000

ITU

-T

EC

MA

ET

SI

IEC

*

ISO

*

IEE

E

W3C

AT

MF

3GP

P2*

3GP

P*

IET

F*

SmallMediumLarge

35

TSB

Budget SDO Membership fees NoteAnnual fee

(US$)

(25,000,000 $)

40,000,000 SFr

ITU-T choice minimum ½ unit (31,500 SFr) 20,000

20,275,000 $

(21,909,000 Euros)

ETSI obliged turnover 45 units (5,000 Euros/unit) 211,050

IETF Depending on participation

350 $/500 $ per meeting per person,3 meetings per year

1050/1500 x ?

1,200,000 $

ECMA Obliged $ 42,000 / $ 18, 000 / $ 10,000standards free

42,000

(18,300,000 $)

29,305,000 SFr

ISO Through national members

Shared by national members(five big members pay 9% of the budget)

(individual company up to 50,000)

(11,900,000 $)

19,000,000 SFr

IEC

(4,456,200 Euros)

4,000,000 $

3GPP Shared by 6 SDOs Average500,000/SDO

1,840,000 $

3GPP2 Shared by 5 SDOs Average360,000/SDO

W3C Obliged 50,000 $ / 5,000 $, standards free

50,000

IEEE Obliged 5,000

2,870,000 $

ATM obliged + meeting fees

$ 14,000/5,000/3,500/1,500,$ 250/275 per meeting4 meetings/year, standards free

14,000+1,000/1,100 x?

Part III – Company’s dues to SDOs

(Some SDOs receive secretariat support from their members; such expenditures are not counted in the budget.)

36

TSB

1. A big vendor company has to follow 120-180 SDOs, while a big operatorhas 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

TSB

Task Force

IETF

Intergovernment

ITU-T NGOsISO,IEC,

IEEE, ETSI, ECMA

Forums & Consortia

3GPP3GPP2ATMFW3C

Part III – Organization Types

38

TSB

MarketIETF (IP)

3GPP (3G)3GPP2 (3G)

ATMF (ATM)W3C (WWW)

IEEE (LAN, …)Region recognized

ETSI (Telecom + IT)

International legal References

ITU-T (Telecom + IT)ISO (IT + )

IEC (Electronic + )

Part III – User categories

39

TSB

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

TSB

3rd meeting in January 2001key 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)1. WGR and AHG 1: no agreement on “ITU Standard Forum”2. AHG 1: no consensus reached3. A pilot Forum in ITU-T might be useful4. A number of participants consider WTSA-2000 essentially modified

ITU-T, wait further to see the results.


41

TSB

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


42

TSB

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 in9 months, while AAP can approve technical Recommendations in lessthan 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 onlanguages. However, this expenditure is covered by the ITU budget, noting that the Sector Members’ contributions correspond to 1/3 of theentire 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 than3 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

TSB

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 meetingreports, normal contributions, delayed contributions, not stable draft Recommendations, etc. were not translated;

Some ITU-T Recommendations were published in Englishonly, e.g. X-series proformas;

Software part of Recommendations remain in the originallanguage 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.


44

TSB

Q.4: Industry does want power, but never succeeded.

A.4: How is “power” defined? True, at PP, at Council, industry has noseats. 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


45

TSB

absolute majority, etc. Another point: who has right to vote? Individualperson (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 alwayssought in most cases to approve their standards. To use “voting” fortechnical 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 approvingRecommendations by vote. “Voting” is a tool never-used (power) by Member States. Although Sector Members cannot votedirectly, they can vote through their national Administrations.


46

TSB

Q.6: Some Sector Members have become a multi-national forcerather 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, thereare no major manufacturers and their operators carry out their activitieswithin their national/regional territories. Coordination for multinationalcompanies at national/international levels will have to be reviewed.

Q.7: Appointment of Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of SGs were still controlledby Member States, not appreciated by Sector Members.

A.7: For the first time in ITU-T, I introduced a transparent process to appointChairmen and Vice Chairmen of SGs: had discussions in TSAG, issued aCircular-letter to invite Members to propose candidates, several rounddiscussions with Members before the WTSA, and with Heads ofdelegations during WTSA. During the whole process, the competencewas always at the first place for consultations. The result is:14 out 15 Chairmen of SGs are from Sector Members and none fromdeveloping countries. There are many things to be improved in theprocess. More transparency will be introduced in the future.


47

TSB

Q.8: Can ITU provide its Recommendations free of charge?

A.8: No. It is not possible under the current circumstances. The salerepresents a 7-8% of the ITU Budget. ITU cannot afford to lose this revenue.Externally, except IETF and a very few SDOs where their budgetsystem 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 andIEC, etc.

Starting from January 2001, a trial of 3 free downloads of ITU productsper person will be welcomed by students, researchers, ITU experts,and the public. A free web access to ITU official products will be providedto each ITU member (not “Associates”). Other advantages includespecial fees for universities, for the LDCs, etc. ITU’s sales policy will befurther reviewed.

It is interesting to note that many new players have disappeared aftera free service for a short period.


48

TSB

Q.9: ITU has too many face-to-face meetings, and it relays on their meetingsonly.

A.9: Yes, for ITU-T, meetings are very important. All important decisionsincluding approval of Recommendations are made at the meetings.However, for many years, ITU-T also uses electronic means, e-mailconsultations, 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; submissiondocuments by several electric means (web, ftp, e-mail, etc.) arearranged. AAP procedures are conducted by e-mail only; TDs availableon web the next day, pre-published Recommendations available in acouple of days after its approval; on-line subscriptions, electronicbookshop, various TSB database; ITU-T home page has a lot ofinformation free to ITU-T Members; paperless meeting for some SGsalready exist; LAN connection in the ITU meeting rooms; TSAG/WP3dedicated to EDH; WTSA-2000 encouraged EDH; etc.

49

TSB

Q.10: ITU is an intergovernmental organization. Engineers/users, particularlyyoung people, stay far away from ITU.

A.10: A lot of efforts has been made to provide an easy access and a friendlyenvironment for new comers. For example, TSB has recently prepareda “guideline for new comers”. TSB staff will be pleased to assist newcomers for any enquiry. Actions to promote ITU in the circle of youngpeople 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

TSB

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 duplicateits 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 duringthe IETF General Assembly (GA), why are there always2000-3500 participants for each GA, three times a year?Can they continue their working methods like this?

- for 3GPPs, budget and meeting expenditures becomemore and more troublesome.

I sincerely hope that both of them will keep their momentum and theywill find ways to go forward.


51

TSB

Q.12: How do you see the proposal to establish “technical specification”?

A.12: For the time being, ITU-T “Recommendation” is the only “official”output of standards. The term “draft Recommendation” does notprovide distinctions to the various steps of the draft text, which could bethe very first draft from the scratch, or a very stable draft ready to beapproved. In some cases, the industry would like to start theimplementation of a draft Recommendation at their own risk. In casea formal approval of this text as Recommendation will be not possiblein the near future, to provide a new product, which has lower status than Recommendation, would be useful to satisfy the request fromexceptional cases.

Such a product could be called “technical specification”, or “Working Party supported draft Recommendation”, or any other name. Anyhow, further discussion is needed.

It is noted that ETSI has three categories of outputs, and ISO has“Technical Report” at a lower level and has a formal definition for “draft International Standards (DIS)” at the last stage for ballot.


52

TSB

Q.13: Do you support a new entity independent from ITU-T?

A.13: As Director of TSB, I will certainly promote the internal Reform to make theITU-T more attractive. The discussions on an independent “new entity” bythe last AHG1 meeting in January 2001 have now reached a proposal ofa pilot forum within ITU-T after PP-02 and WTSA-04.

It should be noted that, at the 1st Martigny meeting, the industry leadersclearly supported a “forum” model to be established by ITU-T.

In my opinion, ITU-T has a good possibility to establish such a forum,because the rules and guidelines in ITU-T Rec. A.7 on “focus group”are similar to those for “fora”, and a strong will to push ITU-T reformwill facilitate this action.


53

TSB

Q.14: In your opinion, ITU remains the best place. Why does it have a bad image?

A.14: It is a “classic” image. It is a perception problem. It is very difficultto change this image. I put “promotion” very high on my agenda as fromthe beginning of 1999. Promotion is a complicated process which

involves effective cooperation of all partners.

Q.15: What actions have you done for promotion? Any progress?

A.15: I have taken many measures, including:

1. Renamed a TSB Department by adding “Promotion” to its title and pushed this Department to take actions.

2. Sent TSB engineers to conferences, seminars to promote ITU.3. Created a post of “Communication and promotion”, insisted on

“promotion” as an integral part of the title.4. Reacted to the wrong criticisms from the journalists and some

VIPs to defend ITU’s position.


54

TSB

5. Enhanced cooperation with the ITU Press Service.6. Encouraged SG press release actions.7. Change the responsibility of one P4 staff to take care of promotion.8. Always put “promotion” high on my agenda, presentations.9. Organize ITU-T activities in the regions, organize workshops,

seminars.However, the progress is very limited. We have to work more.

Q.16: What should ITU-T do?

A.16: Before PP-02, there are two major tasks: to promote ITU-T andto improve its efficiency further.

We have to promote:

1. ITU-T in the company of the current ITU-T members,particularly among company’s young engineers in Business Unitsand leaders at different levels.

2. ITU-T activities in the regions, by organizing SG meetings,seminars, workshops in the regions.


55

TSB

3. ITU-T proactively in the market to attract new industry members.4. ITU-T in the universities.5. GOAL: to make ITU-T Impressive, Attractive, Dynamic and

Energetic (IANE).

To improve efficiency, ITU-T can do a lot of things before PP-02.

Q.17: What do you expect from industry?

A.17: I have the impression that neither fora nor SDO could survive if therewas no support from big companies and that they have problemsin following up on all existing and ever-increasing SDOs. It is in theinterest of both industry and ITU to work together to make the best useof the very limited resources of experts and money. I therefore hopeindustry: to have a positive image of ITU-T:

the best place for industry, and to promote it;


56

TSB

to strengthen ITU-T’s position by:- contacting always ITU-T first for any new initiatives;- informing ITU-T of the “bad thing” for ITU-T to tackle;- providing support to ITU-T.

Q.18: For ITU-T reform, what can you propose?

A.18: 1) Some proposals to further recognize and strengthen Sector Members’position;

2) Budget reform. The current system should be changed, because: not much flexibility;

no direct linkage between Sector Member’s contributions andSector’s budget;

no incentive to encourage Members to pay more thanthe minimum;

Sector Member’s fee is not a heavy burden for big companies, but it does not encourage operators from developing countries and small companies to join ITU; Associates’ fee very high for

Universities;


57

TSB

use “registration fee” for universities and small industryto attend ITU-T meetings.

3) ITU-T’s main task is telecommunications with its major work onpublic network aspects. I would propose to enlarge its scope tocover telecommunications plus information technologies;

4) Proposal to PP-02 to give more power to the Sector Members to manage their work in ITU-T;

5) Allow a new category of products of “technical specifications”at a level lower than “Recommendation” for special cases (start with TSAG);

6) Some arrangements to encourage the members to attend meetings.For example, establish a mechanism to encourage active Memberswho have attended two consecutive meetings (could start withTSAG).

***********


Documents

TSB 1 ITU-Ts current situation and its future Presentation by Houlin ZHAO Director, TSB International Telecommunication Union, Geneva at Informal Consultation