INCITS
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1250 Eye St. NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005
Telephone 202-737-8888; Fax 202-638-4922;

As detailed in IT/02-1282, TC Chairmen were invited to submit issues for consideration by the Standards Policy Board. The responses are detailed below.

November 14, 2002

Requirements from East Asia, e.g., compliance with new character set (and PRC standard) GB 18030.

Basically, there is a concern that certain governments (in this case, the Chinese government) are going to force their technical issues through via policy, rather than technical discussions. All software currently shipping in China must support this standard (GB18030), in spite of its technical deficiencies vis-à-vis 10646. (The feeling is that the government is trying to get around any technical arguments by making it a compliance standard for sales.)

December 23, 2002

I received input from one of our technical group chairman on your request.

The topic is around insufficient votes when polling our membership and how we consider uncast ballots. As I understand it, the INCITS guidelines are different from ISO/IEC JTC 1 rules where uncast ballots are ignored. Countries not wishing to vote on an issue can not force the rejection of a ballot. The votes are counted on the basis of the countries voting and a strong majority there passes the resolution. Recall that one of the last votes we had did not pass because one company voted negatively, but there was not a majority of members voting in favor of the resolution. We must respect minority rights, but to have a single company defeat a vote because other companies did not return a ballot seems a bit extreme.

Would INCITS consider the option of something like the following:

In the event that 45% or more of the members of a committee do not vote on a letter ballot, then the ballot will be approved unless more than 25% of the members voting disapprove the ballot.

Since we function mostly at the international level, I think that rules more closely akin to the international rules would be appropriate.

January 8, 2003

While the PPC is busy figuring out how to word the 2/3 rule, perhaps it makes sense for them to address changing the following:

Members are urged to submit technical and policy discussions, recommended positions, and supporting data in writing. These members are required to provide sufficient copies of such for each member present.

since we (along with most other standards bodies) encourage electronic distribution of presentation, rather than paper. T1X1 has the following posted policy:

EDH Requirements:                 

                 Electronic Document Handling (EDH) tools are utilized at the T1X1 meetings. Files should be uploaded prior to the meeting and you are strongly encouraged to download and review those of interest to you prior to the meeting. You should bring a laptop with these files in order to view documents during the meeting. The ability to read CDs will allow you to view late documents as well as those created during the meeting.

       

We are currently introducing next generation EDH facilities in T1X1, including a server with both wired and wireless LAN capabilities. If you wish to participate in this trial, please be sure to have a CD-ROM drive AND your ethernet card, dongle and cable (for wired) OR an 802.11B compliant wireless LAN card (for wireless).

       

Also see the T1X1 Information Director's page on T1X1's EDH policies.

Neil Wanamaker pointed out an interesting issue in the SD-2, clause 4.3.6.

I would propose that the paragraph in the clause be changed to read:

It is helpful, in cases of extended discussions, to include a summary of major points made, with or without attribution. Individual remarks or detailed transcripts need not to be recorded; however, any specific statement should be recorded when requested by the Chair, group, or a member. Members are urged to submit technical and policy discussions, recommended positions, and supporting data in written or commonly accessible electronic form. These members are required to provide such documents according to the practices of the group such that each member present has access to the documents. These documents can then be registered and simply referenced in the minutes.

Additional proposed SD-2 changes include:

• Clarification of explanatory text of 2/3 rule.       

    The script prepared by John Lohmeyer may be an appropriate informative annex. In any case, this appears to still be unclear, in particular about the removing of abstains from the vote counts.

• Simplification and shortening of time for calling adhoc and study group meeting teleconferences and perhaps for calling such meetings.  Our experience is that the actual scheduling of adhoc teleconferences may not be possible more than two weeks in advance.  I would like some wiggle words in the text such that adhoc and study group meetings, which by definition can take no final actions, should be allowed with a two week notice and a two week agenda notice, if such actions are explicitly allowed by the corresponding TC and TG.
• Refinement of the membership explanation provided in a recent Officer's Update to clarify that the new membership takes effect at the BEGINNING of the second meeting, not the end of it.

January 8, 2003

Some of T10's ad hoc groups would like to use weekly teleconferences on hot projects.

I think as long as we are proposing to shorten the notice time for teleconferences, we should allow the parent group to determine the minimum notice time for subgroup meetings. Also, there should be no specific maximum number of teleconferences between the parent group meetings. Please note that the results of teleconferences are not binding on the parent group, which must approve any recommendations from the teleconference.