[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [odf-adoption] Fast Track approval anyway
The relevant JTC1 Directives section was changed on February 20. Now draft standards can proceed on the fast track despite any contradictions. The new section 13.4 has this language: "If a contradiction is alleged, the JTC 1 Secretariat and ITTF shall make a best effort to resolve the matter in no more than a three month period, consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document, the NB(s) raising the claim of contradiction and others, as they deem necessary. A meeting of these parties, open to all NBs, may be convened by the JTC 1 Secretariat, if required. "If the resolution requires a change to the document submitted for fast-track processing, the initial document submitted will be considered withdrawn. The proposer may submit a revised document, to be processed as a new proposal. "If the resolution results in no change to the document or if a resolution cannot be reached, the five month fast-track ballot commences immediately after such a determination is made." So, whereas the old version allowed for fast tracks to be essentially halted by irreconcilably contradictions, the new version simply says that if there is no agreement, then simply ignore the contradictions and go on with the 5-month ballot anyways. This seems to be a major transfer of power from NB's to Fast Track submittors like Ecma, making the contradiction phase a toothless waste of time. It also appears to conflict mightily with the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which, inter alia, requires that standards not even be prepared if they would create unnecessary obstacles to international trade and requires that the standardization process provide a meaningful early opportunity for national bodies to object to the preparation of standards that would create such obstacles. The silver lining in the dark cloud might be that the process probably won't be dragged out for years if Ecma 376 stays on the fast track. We should have an up or down final ballot about five months from now. Best regards, Marbux On 3/13/07, Charles-H. Schulz <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com> wrote: > Hell all, > > am I missing something? > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9012860&intsrc=news_ts_head > > If anyone would like to comment, I'd love to hear his/her comments on that. > > Best, > Charles. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]