- From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:41:03 -0400
- To: "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKcXiSorH+X8eopvpTgtJZMWKWyBAtePLZKCznf=Nh8PhTNMZA@mail.gmail.com>
My own experience with ISO TCs is that, in addition to formal participation, there are easy and cost-free ways to subtantively engage any of the ISO standards or guidelines that I have had a professional interest in, respecting the ISO standards protocol structure. The ISO operates according to the "Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards" which appears as Annex 3 of the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#annexIII Pathways for participation in ISO work are summarized here: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards_development/who-develops-iso-standards.htm Various standards bodies have developed different ways to supplement the financing of their activities. Some, like the W3C, require a membership fee to participate in IGs and WGs. Others, like the ISO, charge a fee for copies of their publications. (I prefer other ways of funding standards development and distribution, but these models have evolved as they have through working consensus process over many years.) People representing US-based companies can arrange to participate formally in ISO TCs through ANSI: http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/International%20Standardization/2015_ANSI_International_Procedures.pdf Another way to participate is simply to collaborate substantively with other people/companies that are directly participating in ISO TCs. This might seem bureaucratic to some, however ANSI's mission is to advance genuine consensus at the national level amongst US market interests, and then its role in the ISO is to collaborate in moving ahead genuine global consensus. What may be perceived as bureaucratic is, instead, just a hard problem to solve. The particular individuals leading one or another TC for ANSI or the ISO bring along their professional styles, but that's true in any community. Should anyone in the US market have a specific complaint with the ANSI or ISO process, or with governance in a particular TC, there's a pathway for addressing that: http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedures,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2015_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf A relevant current example is UBL's step beyond OASIS to the ISO http://ubl.xml.org/news/ubl-is-now-being-balloted-as-a-draft-international-standard-by-isoiec At present I am happy to report that ISO-level recognition does not seem to be restricting avenues of community participation whatsoever. Indeed the Co-Chairs of that TC have been very pro-actively reaching out and readily engaging discussion. Joseph Potvin Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman jpotvin@opman.ca Mobile: 819-593-5983 LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joseph-potvin/2/148/423> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Swendseid, Claudia < claudia.swendseid@mpls.frb.org> wrote: > ISO membership is a little more complicated than this comment suggests. > > First, ISO has hundreds of technical committees focusing on a huge variety > of standards areas - so its scope is very broad. > As a result in total it has much broader and diverse representation and > membership than W3C. > > ISO is structured mainly to have representatives (or members) through > sovereign countries and their approved, open/consensus standards bodies . > These underlying organizations such as ANSI accredited organizations such > as X9 and X12 in the U,S, have very open membership provisions. So the US > Fed participates in ISO technical committees through our participation in > standards groups such as X9 and X12. > > I think the "restictive" characterization that Nick notes relates to > organizations that want to participate in ISO without coming through the > relevant country based standards organization. > > I think its more accurate to describe W3C and ISO as having different > models as it relates to membership and standards development. > > Claudia > > > Claudia Swendseid > >
Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 10:41:51 UTC