 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this ITU-T, Editors and Marbeters tutorial, which will take place today and tomorrow. This tutorial is being recorded and we also have remote participants, I think, online. So, welcome to this event. It's not the first time that we're organizing this event. It's a crucial event. We have about 250 Marbeters in ITU-T and about, guess how many editors we have? We have about 1,000 editors. And we put out about one recommendation per day, per working day a year. So, the roles of the few of the Marbeters and editors or aspiring editors and Marbeters is really absolutely crucial. It's also crucial because we need to ensure that the quality of our output of our recommendations is good, is solid, and this is your responsibility to ensure that this is the case. It's also very important that you know the rules and some of the tricks that may help facilitate your job as an editor and an editor. And so, we are very happy to welcome Gary Fishman as the professor and tutor of this tutorial. Gary has been with Bell Labs, then with AT&T, then with Loosent, and then with Helicatal Loosent. He has also been chairman of our TSAG, that's the Telecommunications Sanitization Advisory Group for 12 years. I had the pleasure of working with Gary as his secretary for eight years, and I've benefited a lot from Gary. So, Gary knows, I think, everything from A to Z. And so, I don't think we need any better tutor than Gary to run this tutorial. Thank you very much for joining, for coming. As I said, this is really very, very important. And Gary, I will hand over to you to run the show. Okay, thanks, Reinhardt. Appreciate the introduction. Two things to start. You've all seen my jacket. Okay, we can get rid of that. And there will also be a certificate of completion for those who complete the two-day course. For those online, remotely, you've already been sent an email asking if you could respond with how you would like your name printed on the certificate. And for those in the room here, I'm told a piece of paper will be passed around if you can just indicate how you would like your name to appear. We're trying to be sensitive to your own customs. We know that it's different in different places, and we'd like to get it right. Well, welcome. This is always exciting for me. I have prepared this tutorial at the request of TSB. We know that there are many rapporteurs and editors with a lot of experience, and we also know that there are many new people who are now in the positions and many who would like to be in the position of a rapporteur or editor. And we found that in the transition period of coming into that position, there is a need for some good training in what those roles require and how to do it. I liken it to going out on the field if you want to play football or soccer, and you go out on the field and you don't know the rules and you don't have the right equipment, you're not going to win the game. This is a way to get you to understand what the rules are and to give you some equipment, some things that you can use in the positions of rapporteurs and editors to help you be effective and to get to the goals which are producing good quality recommendations. We have two days which are going to be filled with an awful lot of material. All the slides are available online and tomorrow we are going to have some interactive sessions. This I find is the best way to learn. In the afternoon, based on all the things you've learned here and your own experience, we're going to break up into some groups, depends how many people are here. We'll go through some examples in the approval procedures and we'll start with some very simple situations. You'll be able to consider them, talk to each other, look at what the rules say and then tell us what you think the right action would be if you were the rapporteur or perhaps the study group chairman dealing with that situation. And we'll go through a whole series of cases getting somewhat more and more complex. I think it's fun. You'll get to be more actively involved with the discussion and I think that contributes a lot to the experience and the understanding. We have a large number of presentations. What I would encourage you, if you have a question, ask the question as soon as it occurs to you. If I lose you in the first five minutes, you're going to wonder what we're talking about for the next 30 minutes. So I have no problem and encourage you, if there's a question ask it as soon as it occurs just raise your hand and we'll deal with it. We'll also go from session to session with very little break because we have a very full agenda and there are enough breaks to give you a chance to recover. If there are no questions then we're going to get right to the first session and the whole program was sent to you the other day and it's all listed on the website as well. So the first session has to do with the role of rapporteurs and editors. Alright, so who are you? Most of you are technical experts. You've gone to meetings maybe for years. You represent your own company or your own government and you're here to present your positions and to be an advocate to try to win. Usually you go to the meetings and it says here you do your thing and you go home and you have no real involvement with organizing the sessions with reporting on them to do any follow-up to plan the next meetings but now you're different. You're a rapporteur, you're an editor. Your role has changed. Now you're going to have to do some additional work. You're going to plan a work program. You're going to talk to the study group management. You're going to talk to your study group chairman, the working party chairman. Your job in many cases is to stimulate activity, to stimulate input from your experts and when you set up your rapporteur group, the people who are working with you which we call your collaborators, sometimes will be active and sometimes you need to stimulate them and that's your job. You also will find that people come in with different ideas and part of your job is to bring them together to some form of agreement and keep progressing the work from meeting to meeting. Your job is to be a leader. You're not here to advocate any particular position. You've got to be neutral. You have to appear neutral and as it says here on the slide, you really have to be neutral. It's more than just the appearance. You will also have an obligation to report back to your parent body, most cases a working party, on the progress that you've made since the previous working party meeting. So you have some new responsibilities and it's going to go beyond what you can do as a technical expert. Hopefully you've been selected to be a rapporteur or editor based on not only your willingness to do the extra work but also based on your good technical background. It gives you a great opportunity to be included in the inner circle of the management of the study group. You help talk about what the issues are. You help set the agendas, schedule meetings. You get greater insight into what's going on besides the technical work just in your one area. It also means there's going to be a difference from your employer. I know from my own experience, your company, your government is sending you here to do something on their behalf. When you go to the meeting, part of the time you'll be doing that. However, the time that you spend as a rapporteur or the time you spend as an editor, your employer has to understand that you are not there to represent their interest. And sometimes you're going to have to rule against them because that's what the will of the group is leading you towards. And your employer has to understand that and not make your life difficult because you are not supporting them every time you're sitting in the chair as the rapporteur. One of the things we found is, as people move up into these new positions, they go from a level where they understood what they were doing into a new level where there are different rules. As a rapporteur or an editor, there are a few documents which are key to understanding the rules that apply to you. The first is Resolution 1. This is the basic resolution for ITUT. It starts up at the WTSA level and I describe Res 1 as everything from the study group on up. It's also where you find the rules for the traditional approval process. It's in the last section, section 9 of Res 1. The other document which you'll find applies very directly to you is recommendation A.1. And recommendation A.1, I think of as the study group level and below. Working parties, rapporteur groups, joint coordination groups, contributions. This is a place that gives you in a very long list the responsibilities that a rapporteur has taken on and also gives you some guidance on formats for your reporting. Section 2.3, and for the purists here, clause 2.3, is devoted to the role of rapporteurs. I think most of you should be familiar with this picture. It's the overall structure of ITUT. The reason I put it up here, starting with the assembly, down to the study groups, the working parties, and the rapporteur groups, is it relates to this next question of where do you fit into this overall picture. As a rapporteur, you don't walk in the door and say, I'm the rapporteur. You have to be appointed to that position. And that's the job of the working party chairman. Or if the study question itself is not allocated to a working party, it's still up at the study group level, then the study group would appoint you. But normally it's a working party and the working party chairman will propose you as the rapporteur or the editor and we need agreement of the group to that appointment. The appointment also is not during the four-year cycle between WTSAs. The appointment and your work as a rapporteur is for the period it takes to do and complete the work. It could be less than one study period. It could be more. It's not tied to the four-year cycle. You will be asked to take on responsibility for usually a single question. Sometimes for the large questions with many parts, you could be rapporteur on one part of a question. And there are cases where there are related questions all given to one rapporteur. So this depends on the work to be done and it has to be confirmed by the working party. At the next step, the editors, editors are proposed by the rapporteur and those also have to be endorsed by the working party. As for the rapporteur, the term of employment as an editor also relates to the time it takes to do the work. In this case, it's probably the time to develop and go through the approval of a recommendation. The rapporteur is associated with the question that this may generate many recommendations. You'll find that they are associated with a single recommendation. So what do you do? You've been appointed. Now you are one. Actually, I know someone who used to say it's easier to be one than become one. I'd like to be an engineer. Well, it's easier to be one than to become one. As a rapporteur, you have a few additional duties. First is you're going to need to make reports back to your parent body. You need to organize the work, set some goals, not only in terms of which recommendations to produce, but the timing. What meetings will you need? What groups do you need to relate to on the outside? And you will make a progress report to your parent body at each meeting of the parent body. This is in addition to making reports of each meeting that you hold as a rapporteur. You also are going to have the fun of having to bring people together, resolve differences, and when this progresses to the point where you're approving recommendations, if there are comments on the draft recommendation, you will be intimately involved with the resolution of those comments. Part of being in this position, it almost doesn't need to be said, but it needs to be said. You need to be at all the meetings. There are some people who take on leadership roles, and we don't see them at every meeting. And that's not what we want from the rapporteurs. You need to be there. So that's rapporteurs at the high level, what they do. Now as an editor, what you do, it's one thing. You edit. Full stop. Editors do not change the content. Editors don't run drafting groups. Editors run editing groups. When you're given the document, what we expect to see coming back is a cleaned up, well-written document that does not change the agreements. It's very difficult. Revising documents without changing the meaning is not an easy job, especially for most of you in a foreign language. We'll have some suggestions later on how you can do this, and we have one whole session tomorrow on editing and revising documents. A lot of times you're going to be sitting in the meeting listening to the discussions. There'll be different contributions. There'll be some active discussion. Perhaps some working documents will be prepared. And at the end there's an agreement, which may not be in final written form. Part of your job is to write down in good English in a coherent way so it fits within the structure of the recommendation. What those agreements were. So it's not easy. You have to be listening very carefully. Is there a question? Yeah, please. Yeah, questions, yeah, please. Okay, yeah, thanks. Perfect time for that question. The editors and rapporteurs should be progressing the work, and I'll be saying more about that. It does not mean that editors change the content in order to progress the work. Editors edit. In other standards bodies it's different. I did this course recently in another country, someone who participated in a different standards body, and in that group editors were expected to make changes. Essentially what they were doing is what we call a drafting group, where you're creating new text. Within the context of ITUT, editors do not do that. Editors edit. But doing a good job as an editor does progress the work. What I'd say is, if you have a new idea as an editor, submit that as a contribution to the rapporteur group. But we don't want to be in a situation of giving a document, a lot of marked up documents to an editor, and then when it comes back to have to go through line by line to see what happened, to see if anything changed. We need to trust that the editor did not make changes, only cleaned up the document. Now we know, one of the sub-bullets here about using proper language, grammar and formatting, there are some guideline documents. There's also a good point to inject a word here. Each of the presentations deals with a different area, and each is meant as a reference document, so it stands alone. You'll find that many of the presentations today and tomorrow will mention the same things. It's not meant to duplicate, it just means that we want each session to stand on its own. A document that you'll find very useful is, well, two of them, the Author's Guide for Drafting Recommendations. This gives you the format of a recommendation and also the rules for formatting it. And the other is the English Language Style Guide. This is from ITU, and this provides you a lot of very helpful information on how to use the language, and that makes it easier later on for the final cleanup and editing of the document. And the editing should be done from the very, very beginning of the drafting. If you wait for the end, it becomes impossible to do a final edit without changing the meaning. Yes, question? Yep, thank you. Yeah, question, if the repertoire is neutral and the editor only edits, does that mean ideas, proposals only come in contributions? Yes, full stop. In ITUT, that's how we work. We're driven by contributions. If an editor or a rapporteur has a great idea to submit, put it in a contribution, that's how we work. Now, later on, not sure today or tomorrow, there'll be something about chairing meetings and there is something in the rules of the ITU that says, at the appropriate time, chairman can make proposals to progress the work. Editor, there are also some things that you should not do. Rapporteurs don't keep working when there's no need. If you find there's no interest, you're not getting contributions, events have passed you by. Part of your responsibility is to go back to your working party and say, I propose we stop. In standards bodies, that's not very common where people propose to stop work. They just want to go on forever. But part of your responsibility is not to waste your time or the time of the group working on something where there's no real interest. So don't keep working unless there really is an interest from the rest of the membership to do the work. And as I mentioned before, editors do not change content when you're chairing an editing group, you're cleaning up text. You're not drafting new text. Also, and these points are on the slide because I've seen these things happen, you don't put your own ideas in in place of what the agreement was and you don't put your own ideas in where there was a gap, where there were no other contributions. You're given some trust. This is true whether you're a study group chairman or a rapporteur or an editor. There's a large degree of trust that makes the whole process work. Don't abuse that. You'll find that if you try to abuse your power to get away with something that you shouldn't be doing, eventually people will find out you lose their trust and once that happens, it either takes a very long time to regain the trust or more likely you'll never regain the trust. Your job is not to direct the work. Your job is to lead the group to their decisions. Now, the structure for the rest of this two-day tutorial is we're going to look at a sort of a high-level overview of the procedures and the responsibilities of your role. We're coming down into more details. We'll look at some of the tools you have available, the different types of groups that work within ITUT. We'll spend quite a bit of time on decision-making and we have a very interesting presentation from Reinhard Scholl on the art of building consensus, which is interesting because we don't have a definition of what consensus is. We'll talk about the inputs to meetings and also the outputs from meetings, including recommendations. There'll be a whole session about drafting recommendations and that's going to be tomorrow and following that, a whole session on editing and revising recommendations. We'll have some short sessions about intellectual property rights. You're not the experts, I'm not the expert, but as a leader you need to know what the rules are and what your role is in that process dealing with IPR. And we'll point out many times a lot of good reference material. It's all available on the ITUT's website. Guideline documents, templates and databases. So that's the overview of what we're going to be doing. Let me ask if there are any further questions. Yeah, please. Thank you. Again, going back to the question of the two colleagues before, you are trying to simplify the picture. Of course, you said that we have to understand taking by the letter or the meaning of what you're saying. You say the editor just does, but doesn't introduce things in his activity. Of course, the groups, they can be not so big and as the colleagues they said, an editor is there because he's interested also in the activity. So the editor is completely entitled also to bring contributions and to discuss contributions. Of course, he doesn't have to mix up the two things because after now you said the editor is a third party. In this case, it can also be involved. Then the other point is not creating new text or other things and only contribution. But contribution, again, not just by the letter, a contribution can bring a new proposal but then is the meaning that decides the text that then will come into. So the contribution is often the starter of a text. Is that okay? Yeah, thank you. Again, this is an important point. One of the reasons we're having these sessions to reiterate, what you said is correct. Editors do not introduce their own ideas as the editor but they can submit contributions. Many chairmen have this problem of switching hats. If you have many people from your company, somebody else presents the contribution from the floor. Sometimes you don't have that luxury and you have to say I'm taking off my hat as the chairman, maybe you asked someone else to sit in the chair at that moment and you say now I'm presenting my contribution from my company. We deal with that all the time. And then you have to put your hat back on as the chair and really be neutral. Contributions are how new ideas come in. Tell you a story. And those who know me know I do this all the time. I'll break into the slides and say let me tell you a story. My early days in CCITT, it was a study group 18, Roman number 18, which is now study group 13. There was someone in the chair of a working party and I was sitting in that meeting and a draft recommendation was introduced by the rapporteur and the chairman rejected it because the chairman was a good chairman. It turned out that the rapporteur had written the draft recommendation with no contributions. It was of importance to him. It had to do with his country and it was actually because of the geography of their country why they proposed a certain transmission system. But there were no contributions and this one person wrote the whole thing on their own. Even if it was perfectly formatted, it was not right. As the editor or the rapporteur, you have to base your work on the input contributions. We are contribution driven. We're bottom up. Yes, Stefano? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just perhaps to provide a comment that might clarify one thing. Because I heard from the floor, we say editor can or cannot submit contribution. We always said yes, it can submit a contribution. This is wrong. The company of the editor can submit contribution, not the editor. We don't have to stop that. That's why there might be some confusion. Of course, the editor might draft it for his company, but the contributions can be submitted only by members, sector members or member states. The editor, search editor, you cannot have a contribution, but the editor can submit a TD search editor. He can do that because he's the one who put together the various contribution, not with his own mind, but with what the meeting agreed and then provide the output of the meeting according to what was agreed. And the TD won't have any additional input. This is what we are saying. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. That's what I meant to say. Yes, you don't put in a contribution, the source is the editor. The source is the member, the member state or the sector member or the associate. Yeah, editors, rapporteurs, study group chairman do not submit contributions. They can submit a temporary document in their role as the editor or the chairman. So that's a good clarification. If the editor or the rapporteur has a proposal, it's submitted as a contribution from their member, not as the individual editor. This is good. Two questions. First, second. Probably. Your clarification would have been better timed if it was coming tomorrow. So we are having more clear what are the various parties that are taking part of this. Of course, I understood I cannot sign or write as editor. I propose this, but as company, yes. What you said before, if a company doesn't have a possibility to send more people to the same meeting, I can say that companies have already difficulties to send one person to the meetings. So more and more of these switching hats will be a typical habit and we have to work with that. The question was simple. I think it has been answered as a member, sector member and maybe I can be also an editor or a reporter if I had to submit something from my company, I submit as a company with my name in that case and not as an editor. Yes, correct. Contributions only come from the membership and associates. Thank you. Next question. I have a simple question. As all recommendations are written in English, basically, right? So I presume that editors have a good knowledge and master the English language to a certain extent. Is my presumption wrong or correct? Thank you. Question, is it right to assume that all editors are very good at English? Unfortunately, that's not the case. Many editors from countries where English is not their native language and it's for them a job to write in a foreign language, English and that's why we need some mechanisms to help. We'll talk about that later. Setting up an editing group working with TSB throughout the process. This is very difficult and I would have great difficulty if everything was being written in one of the other official languages. Internationally, regionally, we find that English is the language that's used. We find that some countries who have participated for a longer time have devoted energies to working on their English and countries which are beginning to participate more need to also do that. It's a difficulty that most of the delegates do face and we have some tools and especially within the ITU we've got some mechanisms to try to help.