W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webpayments-ig@w3.org > September 2015

Re: Organize a chat on account/ledger capabilities?

From: Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 06:41:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKcXiSorH+X8eopvpTgtJZMWKWyBAtePLZKCznf=Nh8PhTNMZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-webpayments-ig@w3.org" <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
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:

Pathways for participation in ISO work are summarized here:

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:
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:

A relevant current example is UBL's step beyond OASIS to the ISO
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
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:44 UTC