1.1.  Recommendations of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) will be approved using this alternative approval process (AAP), except Recommendations that have policy or regulatory implications, which will be approved using the traditional approval process (TAP) found in Resolution 1 of the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA).

The competent study group may also seek approval at a WTSA.

1.2.  In accordance with the ITU Convention, the status of Recommendations approved is the same for both AAP and TAP methods of approval.

2.1.  Study groups should apply the AAP described below for seeking the approval of draft new and revised Recommendations as soon as they have been developed to a sufficiently mature state. See Figure 1 for the sequence of events.

3.1.  Upon request of the study group chairman, the Director of the Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) shall announce the intention to apply AAP and to initiate the last call set out in this Recommendation (see Section 4 below). Such action shall be based upon consent at a study group or working party meeting or, exceptionally, at a WTSA, that a draft Recommendation is sufficiently mature for such action. At this stage, the draft Recommendation is considered to have "CONSENT". The Director shall include a summary of the draft Recommendation in the announcement. Reference shall be provided to the documentation where the text of the draft new or revised Recommendation to be considered may be found. This information shall be made available to all Member States and Sector Members.

3.2.  The text of the draft new or revised Recommendation must be available to TSB in a final edited form at the time that the Director makes the announcement of the intended application of the AAP set out in this Recommendation. Any associated electronic material included in the Recommendation (e.g., software, test vectors, etc.) must also be made available to TSB at the same time. A summary that reflects the final edited text of the draft Recommendation must also be provided to TSB, in accordance with 3.3 below.

3.3.  Such a summary should be prepared in accordance with the Author's Guide for drafting ITU-T Recommendations. This summary is a brief outline of the purpose and content of the new or revised draft Recommendation and, where appropriate, the intent of the revisions. No Recommendation shall be considered as complete and ready for approval without this summary statement.

3.4.  Approval may only be sought for a draft new or revised Recommendation within the study group's mandate as defined by the Questions allocated to it, in accordance with No. 192 of the Convention. Alternatively, or additionally, approval may be sought for amendment of an existing Recommendation within the study group's responsibility and mandate.

3.5.  Where a draft new or revised Recommendation falls within the mandate of more than one study group, the chairman of the study group proposing the approval should consult and take into account the views of any other study group chairmen concerned before proceeding with the application of this approval procedure.

3.6.  Recommendations are to be elaborated in accordance with the Common Patent Policy for
ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC available at http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/ipr/. For example:

3.7.  In the interests of stability, once a new or revised Recommendation has been approved, approval should not normally be sought within a reasonable period of time for any further amendment of that new text or that revised portion, respectively, unless the proposed amendment complements rather than changes the agreement reached in the previous approval process, or a significant error or omission is discovered. As a guideline, in this context "a reasonable period of time" would be at least two years, in most cases.

Amendments that correct defects may be approved, in accordance with 7.1.

4.1.  The last call encompasses the four-week time period and procedures beginning with the Director's announcement of the intention to apply the alternative approval process (3.1).

4.2.  If TSB has received a statement(s) indicating that the use of intellectual property, protected by one or more copyright(s) or patent(s), issued or pending, may be required in order to implement a draft Recommendation, the Director shall post this information on the ITU-T website.

4.3.  The Director of TSB shall advise the Directors of the other two Bureaux that Member States and Sector Members are being asked to comment on the approval of a proposed new or revised Recommendation.

4.4.  During the last call, should any Member State or Sector Member be of the opinion that the draft new or revised Recommendation should not be approved, they should advise their reasons for disapproving and indicate the possible changes that would facilitate further consideration and approval of the draft new or revised Recommendation. TSB will make the comments available to the membership of ITU-T.

4.5.  The additional review encompasses a three-week time period and will be announced by the Director. The text (including any revisions as a result of comment resolution) of the draft Recommendation in a final edited form and comments from the last call must be made available to TSB at the time that the Director makes the announcement of the additional review. Reference shall be provided to the documentation where the text of the draft Recommendation and last call comments to be considered may be found.

4.6.  The Director shall explicitly announce the intention to approve the draft Recommendation at least three weeks prior to the study group meeting. The Director shall include the specific intent of the proposal in summarized form. Reference shall be provided to the documentation where the draft text and comments from the last call (and additional review, if relevant) may be found. The edited text of the draft Recommendation from the additional review (or last call if there is no additional review) is submitted for approval by the study group meeting in accordance with Section 5 below.

5.1.  The study group should review the text of the draft new or revised Recommendation and the associated comments referred to in 4.6 above. The meeting may then accept any corrections or amendments to the draft new or revised Recommendation. The study group should reassess the summary statement in terms of its completeness.

5.2.  Changes may only be made during the meeting as a consequence of written comments as a result of the last call, additional review, contributions, or temporary documents including liaison statements. Where proposals for such revisions are found to be justified but to have a major impact on the intent of the Recommendation or to depart from points of principle agreed at the previous study group or working party meeting, consideration of this approval procedure should not be applied at this meeting. However, in justified circumstances, the approval procedure may still be applied if the chairman of the study group, in consultation with TSB, considers:

• that the proposed changes are reasonable (in the context of the documentation described in this clause) for those Member States and Sector Members not represented at the meeting, or not represented adequately under the changed circumstances; and

• that the proposed text is stable.

However, if a Member State present declares that this text has policy or regulatory implications or there is a doubt, the approval procedure shall proceed according to Resolution 1, clause 9.3 or 5.8 below.

5.3.  After debate at the study group meeting, the decision of the meeting to approve the Recommendation under this approval procedure must be unopposed (but see 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8). Every effort should be made to reach unopposed agreement.

5.4.  If, despite these attempts, unopposed agreement has not been reached, the Recommendation is considered as approved if, following consultation with their Sector Members present, no more than one Member State present in the meeting opposes the decision to approve the Recommendation (but see 5.5, 5.6 and 5.8). Otherwise, the study group may authorize additional work to address the remaining issues.

5.5.  In cases where a Member State or Sector Member does not elect to oppose approval of a text, but would like to register a degree of concern on one or more aspects, this shall be noted in the report of the meeting. Such concerns shall be mentioned in a concise note appended to the text of the Recommendation concerned.

5.6.  A decision must be reached during the meeting on the basis of a text available in its final form to all participants at the meeting. Exceptionally, but only during the meeting, a Member State may request more time to consider its position for 5.4 above. Unless the Director of TSB is advised of their opposition within a period of four weeks from the end of the meeting, the Recommendation is approved and the Director shall proceed in accordance with 6.1.

5.7.  A Member State or Sector Member may advise at the meeting that it is abstaining from the application of the procedure. Their presence shall then be ignored for the purposes of 5.3 above. Such an abstention may subsequently be revoked, but only during the course of the meeting.

5.8.  If the draft new or revised Recommendation is not approved, the study group chairman, after consultation with the parties concerned, may proceed according to 3.1 above, without further CONSENT at a subsequent working party or study group meeting.

6.1.  The Director of TSB shall promptly notify the membership of the results (indicating approval or non-approval) of the last call and additional review.

6.2.  Within two weeks of the closing date of the study group meeting described in 5.3 to 5.5 above or, exceptionally, two weeks after the period described in 5.6, the Director shall notify whether the text is approved or not by a circular. The Director shall arrange for this information to also be included in the next available ITU Operational Bulletin. Within this same time period, the Director shall also ensure that any Recommendation approved is available online, with an indication that the Recommendation may not be in its final publication form.

6.3.  Should minor, purely editorial amendments or correction of evident oversights or inconsistencies in the text as presented for approval be necessary, TSB may correct these with the approval of the chairman of the study group.

6.4.  The Secretary-General shall publish the approved new or revised Recommendations as soon as practicable, indicating, as necessary, a date of entry into effect. However, in accordance with Recommendation ITU-T A.11, minor amendments may be covered by corrigenda rather than a complete reissue. Also, where appropriate, texts may be grouped to suit market needs.

6.5.  Text shall be added to the cover sheets of all new and revised Recommendations urging users to consult the ITU-T patent database and the ITU-T software copyright database. Suggested wording is:

• "ITU draws attention to the possibility that the practice or implementation of this Recommendation may involve the use of a claimed intellectual property right. ITU takes no position concerning the evidence, validity or applicability of claimed intellectual property rights, whether asserted by ITU Member States and Sector Members or by others outside of the Recommendation development process."

• "As of the date of approval of this Recommendation, ITU had/had not received notice of intellectual property, protected by patents/software copyrights, which may be required to implement this Recommendation. However, implementers are cautioned that this may not represent the latest information and are therefore strongly urged to consult the appropriate ITU-T databases available at the ITU-T website."

6.6.  See Recommendation ITU-T A.11 concerning the publication of new and revised Recommendations.

7.1.  When a study group identifies the need for implementers to be made aware of defects (e.g.,typographical errors, editorial errors, ambiguities, omissions or inconsistencies and technical errors) in a Recommendation, one mechanism that may be employed is an implementers' guide. This guide is a historical document recording all identified defects and their status of correction, from their identification to final resolution. Implementers' guides shall be agreed by the study group, or agreed by one of its working parties with the concurrence of the study group chairman. Implementers' guides shall be made available by posting on the ITU-T website with open access.

8.1.  Deletion of Recommendations by WTSA

Upon the decision of the study group, the chairman shall include in his report to WTSA the request to delete a Recommendation. WTSA may approve this request.

8.2.  Deletion of Recommendations between WTSAs

8.2.2.  Notification of the result will be given in another circular, and TSAG will be informed by a report from the Director of TSB. In addition, the Director shall publish a list of deleted Recommendations whenever appropriate, but at least once by the middle of a study period.

Figure 1 — Sequence of events

Notes to Figure 1 – AAP sequence of events

1. SG or WP consent – The study group or working party concludes that the work on a draft Recommendation is sufficiently mature to begin the alternative approval process and to initiate the last call (3.1).

2. Edited text available – The final, edited, draft text, including summary, is provided to TSB, and the study group chairman requests the Director to initiate the last call (3.2). Any associated electronic material included in the Recommendation must also be made available to TSB at the same time.

3. Director's last call announcement and posting – The Director announces the beginning of the last call to all Member States, Sector Members and Associates, with reference to the summary and complete text. If the draft Recommendation has not already been electronically posted, it is done at this time (3.1).

4. Last call judgement – The study group chairman, in consultation with TSB, makes the judgement whether:

   1. no comments other than those indicating typographical errors have been received. In this case, the Recommendation is considered as approved (4.4.1);

   2. a planned study group meeting is sufficiently close to consider the comments received (4.4.2); or

   3. to save time and/or because of the nature and maturity of the work, comment resolution should be initiated leading to the preparation of edited texts (4.4.2).

5. Director's study group announcement and posting – The Director announces that the next study group meeting will consider the draft Recommendation for approval and will include reference to either:

   1. the draft Recommendation (the edited text (LC) version) plus the comments received from the last call (4.6); or

   2. if comment resolution has been carried out, the revised draft Recommendation text. If the revised draft Recommendation has not already been electronically posted, it is done at this time (4.6).

6. Study group decision meeting – The study group meeting reviews and addresses all written comments and either:

   1. proceeds under WTSA Resolution 1 or 5.8, as appropriate, if there might be policy or regulatory implications (5.2); or

   2. approves the draft Recommendation (5.3 or 5.4); or

   3. does not approve the draft Recommendation. If it is concluded that a further attempt at addressing comments received is appropriate, then additional work should be done and the process returns to step 2 (without further CONSENT at a working party or study group meeting) (5.8).

7. Comment resolution – The study group chairman, with assistance from TSB and experts, via electronic correspondence and rapporteur and working party meetings, where appropriate, addresses the comments and prepares a new edited draft Recommendation text (4.4.2).

8. Edited text available – The revised edited text, including summary, is provided to TSB (4.4.2).

9. Next step judgement – The study group chairman, in consultation with TSB, makes the judgement whether:

   1. a planned study group meeting is sufficiently close to consider the draft Recommendation for approval (4.4.3 a); or

   2. to save time and/or because of the nature and maturity of the work, an additional review should be initiated (4.4.3 b).

10. Director's additional review announcement and posting – The Director announces the beginning of the additional review to all Member States and Sector Members, with reference to the summary and complete text of the revised draft Recommendation. If the revised draft Recommendation has not already been electronically posted, it is done at this time (4.5).

11. Additional review judgement – The study group chairman, in consultation with TSB, makes the judgement whether:

    1. no comments other than those indicating typographical errors have been received. In this case, the Recommendation is considered approved (4.5.1); or

    2. comments other than those indicating typographical errors have been received. In this case, the process proceeds to the study group meeting (4.5.2).

12. Director's notification – The Director notifies the members that the draft Recommendation has been approved (6.1 or 6.2).