|
Dear Colleagues,
Ref. the formal route, we need to qualify what is
meant by long time.
If preparatory work has been done (e.g. the
specifications fast track do not appear out of nowhere as a surprise), we are
talking about a 4 months ballot, with another 4-6 months before
publication. When the document is issued for ballot, it has already an ISO
status (Draft International Standard) and number. This means that if the
whole thing is well managed, the process can close within a year. If badly
managed - it can take longer or even fail.
The key there is to start lobbying before the
document is ready for publication.
Another contributing factor that can help such a
process is when it is clear that the document is already supported by its
intended users.
What may need to be sorted up is that the users of
such a standards are - standards setting organizations.
François
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:37
PM
Subject: RE: [stdsreg] agenda for StdsReg
mtg #10, 9 July
Dear Colleagues
A first surely incomplete list of
possible "hosting" organizations and some
pros and cons:
A FORMAL
ROUTE
1 ISO (including ISO/IEC JTC1)
PRO - THE formal standards
body in this field. Adoption as an ISO Standard
would give the
registry spec. sufficient cachet to encourage widespread
adoption
especially amongst formal bodies
CON - Process. Either the
members of an existing TC would have to be
encouraged to adopt a NWI
proposal, OR a PAS-submitter would have be
similarly encouraged, OR an ISO
Member or "A" liaison body would have to be
encouraged to submit a
fast-track solution.
CON - Time. Even a fast track would take
quite a long time, even when the
process had started.
2 CEN plus
ANSI
PRO - "regional" adoption might or might not be easier. Some
processes and
deliverables might be faster and more informal.
CON -
process and time again. Also, would need to be adopted in more
than
one "region" to have proper credibility.
3 A relevant
consortium
Mentioned - OASIS, Dublin Core, others?
PRO - faster
than a formal body, MAYBE easier
CON - more likely reservations about
"ownership" therefore perhaps less
"buy-in"
B INFORMAL
ROUTE
1 UN-ECE/ISO/IEC/ITU-T eBusiness MoU Steering Group
PRO -
brings together major players in the key ICT arena, could serve as
a
springboard to a more formal publication, OASIS (and hopefully CEN/ISSS
in
future) are signatories
CON - confined to eBusiness, no formal
authority
2 ANSI/ISSB plus ICT Standards Board
PRO - ICT
"co-ordinating committees" involving a number of key
organizations
including major consortia, informal "publication places" that
are long-term
bodies, could serve as a springboard to a more formal
publication, ANSI and
CEN/ISSS were going to involve them anyway
CON
- no formal authority over members
3 ITSIG
PRO - specialists in
ISO community including from national members, might
stand some chance of
aceptance
CON - confined to ISO and liaison-type issues; no
consortia involvement
4...
???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best
regards
John Ketchell
Director, CEN/ISSS - Information Society
Standardization System
URL:http://www.cenorm.be/isss
Rue
de Stassart, 36 email (direct) john.ketchell@cenorm.be
B-1050
Brussels email (secretariat) isss@cenorm.be
Belgium
Tel (direct) + 32 2 550 08 46
Fax + 32 2 550 09 66 Tel (secretariat) + 32 2
550 08 13
Tel (GSM) +32 475 594
828
----------------------------------------------------------------
The
archive of this mail list is available at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/stdsreg/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
|