From: Stephen Hayes (TX/EUS) [stephen.hayes@ERICSSON.COM]
Sent: 25 June 2004 22:51
Subject: TSG reorg alternative discussion

In the summary, I described three alternatives.  So I want to kick off the discussion of those alternatives.

Alternative 1: Original proposal
 CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2, SA5 -> CT; T1->RAN; T3->SA

Alternative 2: SA5 stays in SA
 CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2 -> CT; T1->RAN; T3->SA

Alternative 3: T3 also moves to CT
 CN1, CN3, CN4, CN5, T2, T3 -> CT; T1->RAN

I still believe in alternative 1.

My opinion is based upon the following:

1. TSG-CT is likely to be a better venue for a good review of SA5 CRs than SA.  I sit in the SA plenaries and note that most of the delegates sleep through the SA5 report.  The detail level of the SA5 CRs is something that SA delegates typically do not deal with well.  Boring details are the bread and butter of CT delegates.

2. Operator disputes and issues of principle usually percolate to SA.  Technical disputes usually get resolved in the other TSGs.  T3 USIM issues often get escalated to SA for resolution since SIM/USIM are very dear to operators' hearts.  I can't remember the last time I heard a controversial SA5 issue except for the proposal to move SA5 SWGB to CN.

3. The SA5 timeline for production of their specifications is more similar to that of the CT groups.

4 O&M has linkages with all other TSGs (especially UTRAN and CT), but I think CT forms a better long term home since many would view the OSS as parts of the operator's infrastructure (and hence core network).

5. It don't think the argument that a particular function is a "system aspect" and thus should be in SA is valid.  With enough argument, you can rationalize anything as a system aspect.  The criteria should be where is the work best done.

Regards, Stephen