Re: [odf-adoption] Fast Track approval anyway

["Charles-H. Schulz" <charles-h.schulz@arsaperta.com>]

Paul,

thank you so much for this answer. What I can see from that is the
secretary general of the ISO acted legally and perhaps in "bona fide" as
he saw the overwhelming presence of Microsoft at a level the proponents
of the real standard (ODF) were never able to reach. Also, this change
in that section at the last minute is troubling.


Best,

Charles.


marbux a écrit :
> 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 considered withdrawn.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.
>>
>>
>