Re: charter update with two year cycle

Those of us with experience in developing this standard, working to get it taken up in government regulations, and then imlementing them both inside and outside of government - do bring some informative points to the table as to how this is going to actually play out.

AWK: No doubt.  I believe that we all bring informative points to the table. That’s why we are listening.

I have been asking, all along, for a compromise between 2 and 10 years for a regular cycle...to which I hear crickets from those pushing for two years....

Katie, there are discussions going on with the chairs, and the chairs also have other aspects to their employment, so won’t always respond immediately.

I have been reaching out for additional information.  I’ve reached out the Access Board again (and have in the past, which I mentioned in the meeting on Tuesday), I’ve also reached out to contacts in Canada, Australia, and the EU, and have also spoken with Lainey Feingold.  I expect that we will have more information to discuss soon.

I do urge people to bring facts to the discussion, which is what I’m working to do.  This discussion started with a message saying [sic] “2 years is too short, 4-5 years is the appropriate length”, but with little factual information to support that conclusion. I’ve heard numerous times that government policy people and people in the legal community are opposed to a faster timeline, but in the conversations I’ve had so far (details to be provided soon) the evidence is to the contrary.

I am working on a matrix to compare and contrast the different options to allow us to come to a reasoned, evidence-based decision on this topic. Like every other decision, we are making it via a consensus process, and there will be a call for consensus.  If at the end of the call you feel like the process has been violated and the decision is not a consensus one, there is an escalation pathway for complaints. I don’t anticipate that will be necessary.

AWK